Solis v. Kirkwood Resort Co.

California Court of Appeal
94 Cal. App. 4th 354, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 265 (2001)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A liability release contained within a temporally limited contract may be found ambiguous as to its application outside that time frame, creating a question of fact for a jury. Additionally, a ski resort operator may be liable for negligence if it increases the risks of the sport beyond those inherent in it, such as by constructing unmarked, man-made race jumps on a regular ski run.

Facts:

Mario Solis purchased a 'Midweek Season Pass' from Kirkwood Resort Company, which was valid for skiing only on Mondays through Fridays.
As part of the application for the pass, Solis signed a document titled 'Season Pass & Liability Release Agreement.'
On Sunday, March 28, 1999, a day his season pass was not valid, Solis purchased a separate day pass to ski at Kirkwood.
The day pass purchased by Solis did not require him to sign a liability release.
While skiing, Solis entered an area of a run that Kirkwood had recently altered to include hazardous man-made jumps for a ski race.
Solis had skied the same run three days prior, at which time the man-made jumps were not present.
Solis was injured when he encountered the man-made jumps.
The parties disputed whether Kirkwood had adequately warned skiers of the altered conditions by erecting a line of crossed bamboo poles before the accident occurred.

Procedural Posture:

Mario and Janelle Solis filed a lawsuit against Kirkwood Resort Company in a California trial court alleging negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium.
Kirkwood filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by a signed liability release and the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk.
The trial court granted Kirkwood's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in its favor.
Mario Solis, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a liability release contained within a midweek-only season pass agreement unambiguously bar a claim for an injury that occurred on a weekend, and is the risk of encountering unmarked, man-made race jumps on a regular ski run an inherent risk of the sport of skiing under the primary assumption of risk doctrine?

Opinions:

Majority - Morrison, J.

No. The liability release is ambiguous, and the resort may have increased the inherent risks of skiing. A jury could reasonably conclude that the liability release, which was part of a midweek-only season pass agreement, was temporally coextensive with the pass and did not apply to an accident that occurred on a weekend while the passholder was skiing on a separately purchased day ticket. Because the contract language is not clear and an alternative, reasonable interpretation exists, its scope is a question of fact for the jury. Furthermore, while skiers assume the inherent risks of the sport, a resort operator has a duty not to increase those risks. Constructing man-made race jumps on a regular ski run without adequate warning is not an inherent risk of ordinary skiing, and because the facts regarding the presence of warnings were in dispute, the primary assumption of the risk doctrine does not bar the claim as a matter of law.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the application of two key defenses in recreational injury litigation: contractual release of liability and primary assumption of the risk. It reinforces the judicial principle of strictly construing liability waivers against the drafter, holding that ambiguity about a waiver's scope, particularly its temporal limits, creates a triable issue of fact. The decision also refines the assumption of risk doctrine by distinguishing between the inherent risks of a sport and risks added by an operator's negligence; it establishes that significantly altering a recreational area without warning can constitute an increased risk for which the operator owes a duty of care, preventing summary judgment.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Solis v. Kirkwood Resort Co. (2001)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"