Sports & Recreation Liability attorneys in the Philadelphia office of Cipriani & Werner, P.C. scored a trifecta, winning summary judgment in three cases involving downhill skiing collisions, reaffirming the validity of Pennsylvania’s Skier’s Responsibility Act.  The Sports & Recreation Liability Team also leveraged an exculpatory release to win summary judgment in a snowtubing case.

In Birl v. Ski Shawnee, Inc., No. 3:22-CV-1598, 2025 WL 36161 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2025), a minor snowboarder was side-jumping in the terrain park at a ski area when he claims to have lost control and collided with an off-trail light pole resulting in catastrophic injuries.  The plaintiffs filed suit in federal court against the ski area, which was represented by Sports & Recreation Liability attorneys Anthony W. Hinkle and James J. Walsh.  After the close of discovery, the attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the loss of control and collision with an off-trail fixture (in this case, a light pole) were inherent risks of snowboarding, particularly in a terrain park, which the snowboarder assumed and against which the ski area owed no duty of protection. The Court agreed holding:

• Snowboarding is a dangerous activity.  Riding a snowboard in a terrain park to perform tricks and jumps increases the risk of that activity.  Even accepting that the design of the park itself caused G.B. to lose control, it does not follow that the risk of losing control was not inherent to the activity.  When one jumps their snowboard off terrain park features, they may lose control, and the resulting fall or collision can result in tragic, catastrophic injuries, as it did here.  These are the risks assumed by a terrain park snowboarder, and we find they are inherent to that activity.

In Kupstas-Badurina v. Tuthill Corp., No. CV 23-994, 2025 WL 417340, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2025), the plaintiff was injured when she was struck by a snowboarder as she skied down a trail designated as a double black diamond (i.e., most difficult).  The snowboarder had jumped off the hill, lost control, and crashed into the plaintiff’s clavicle causing serious injury.  The plaintiffs filed suit in federal court against the ski area, which was represented by Attorney Hinkle.  After the close of discovery, Attorney Hinkle filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that collisions with other skiers/snowboarders were inherent risks of skiing, which the plaintiff assumed and against which the ski area owed no duty of protection.  The plaintiffs argued the Skier’s Responsibility Act did not apply because the snowboarders were particularly reckless at the mountain that day and they argued there was inadequate signage warning of danger at that particular trail location.  The Court disagreed with plaintiffs and, instead, held the plaintiff’s injury resulted from an inherent risk of skiing citing a myriad of cases, most of which were litigated by Cipriani & Werner’s Sports & Recreation Liability Team, holding that collisions with or between skiers was an inherent risk of skiing.

In Lin v. Shawnee Mountain Ski Resort, et al., No. 4031 CIVIL 2022 (Monroe Cty., Dec. 11, 2024), the plaintiff was skiing down a trail located in front of the lodge and designated as a green circle (i.e., easier or easiest).  As she descended the trail, she was unable to stop.  The plaintiff managed to avoid some ski racks but ultimately crashed into the side of the lodge, breaking a window and sustaining significant injuries.  The plaintiff filed suit in state court against the ski area, which was represented by Attorneys Walsh and Hinkle.  After the close of discovery, Attorneys Walsh and Hinkle filed a motion for summary judgment arguing the accident represented the quintessential inherent risk of skiing – the loss of control and collision with an off-trail fixture (in this case, the lodge).  Our attorneys also argued the exculpatory release signed by the plaintiff barred her negligence claim and there was no evidence as would support the plaintiff’s claims for recklessness or gross negligence.

The Court agreed and rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to cast the design of the ski area as inherently negligent, noting that skiing involves both human error and natural dangers.  The Court explained the plaintiff lost control and was unable to stop while skiing in icy conditions, which was most assuredly a “common, frequent and expected” risk of skiing since icy conditions and changes to the pitch of a slope are to be expected at ski resorts.  The Court reasoned, “it is difficult to imagine a more obvious and avoidable risk than a large stationary building” such as the ski lodge.  The Court recognized that skiers who do not ski under control can expect they will run into things customarily found at ski areas and that claims arising from those collisions are barred by the Skier’s Responsibility Act.  The Court also agreed that there was no evidence as would support a claim for recklessness or gross negligence, and that the exculpatory release barred the plaintiff’s negligence claims.

The continued effectiveness of exculpatory releases was also recently reaffirmed in Cinquemani v. Montage Mountain Resorts, L.P., No. 2020-CV-3626 (Lacka. Cty. C.C.P. Nov. 12, 2024), where the plaintiff was seriously injured while attempting to assist her son who was tangled in a rope on a snowtubing lift.  After the close of discovery, our attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment based on an exculpatory release signed by the plaintiff.  The plaintiff opposed arguing the release was ambiguous.  The Court granted summary judgment noting the inherent risk disclosure specifically identified “the use of the snowtubing lifts” and “becoming entangled with equipment” as inherent risks associated with snowtubing and the release explicitly encompassed allegations that the ski area was negligent.  The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments based upon Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and claimed inconsistencies between the ski area’s advertising and tubing pass purchase terms.

If you have any questions, please contact Anthony Hinkle, Esq. at ahinkle@c-wlaw.com or (610) 567-0700 or James Walsh, Esq. at jwalsh@c-wlaw.com or (610) 567-0700.