Novak v. Virene
224 Ill. App. 3d 317, 166 Ill. Dec. 620, 586 N.E.2d 578 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Participants in recreational downhill skiing are subject to an ordinary negligence standard for injuries caused by collisions, as downhill skiing is not considered a 'contact sport' where physical contact is virtually inevitable or voluntarily submitted to.
Facts:
- On January 16, 1984, Gretchen Novak was downhill skiing on an easy run at a Wisconsin ski resort.
- Novak, who considered herself an experienced, advanced intermediate skier, was 'skate skiing' slowly to the lodge when she felt a shove from behind.
- Jeff Virene collided with Novak, causing her to fall forward, hear her bones snap, and suffer personal injuries.
- Novak testified that she had seen skiers collide on several occasions and that there was always the possibility of such collisions while skiing.
- Novak and Virene did not know each other and were not racing at the time of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Gretchen Novak filed a negligence complaint against Jeff Virene (and others) in the circuit court, alleging, among other things, that Virene negligently failed to control his momentum, keep a proper lookout, warn other skiers, and maintain control.
- Defendant Jeff Virene (whose mother, Darlene Virene, was later substituted as party defendant) filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that downhill skiing was a contact sport with inherent dangers and therefore liability required proof of willful and wanton misconduct, not mere negligence.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of Virene, holding that recreational skiing was a contact sport and that no willful and wanton conduct by Virene was present.
- Novak, as appellant, appealed the trial court's entry of summary judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is recreational downhill skiing a 'contact sport' such that a participant injured by a collision must prove willful and wanton misconduct, rather than ordinary negligence, to establish liability against another participant?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Cerda
No, recreational downhill skiing is not a 'contact sport' for liability purposes, and therefore, an ordinary negligence standard applies to injuries caused by collisions between participants. The court distinguished downhill skiing from traditional 'contact sports' like soccer (Nabozny v. Barnhill, 1975) and basketball (Oswald v. Township High School District No. 214, 1980; Keller v. Mols, 1987) where physical contact is 'virtually inevitable' due to the nature of the game and its rules. While collisions are possible in downhill skiing, they are not an 'inevitable' part of participation, nor does one 'voluntarily submit to bodily contact' with other skiers simply by engaging in the sport. Expanding the contact sport exception to activities like downhill skiing, where contact is merely a possibility rather than inherent, would unduly limit recovery for negligently caused injuries in many everyday activities fraught with danger. The court noted that in other states, downhill skiing cases have successfully proceeded on a negligence theory, implying the inapplicability of a contact sport exception in those jurisdictions. Thus, the court concluded that defendant's conduct should be governed by ordinary negligence standards.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of the 'contact sport exception' in Illinois, preventing its broad application to any activity with an incidental risk of contact. By requiring either 'virtually inevitable' contact or 'voluntary submission' to bodily contact, the court reinforces the applicability of ordinary negligence standards for injuries sustained in sports like downhill skiing, where collisions are possible but not an inherent, expected, or intended part of participation. This ruling ensures that individuals injured by another's carelessness in such activities can seek recourse under the general principles of tort law, promoting safety without unduly burdening vigorous participation.
