Law blogLaw Blog Analysis
Case #1: Fleury vs. Intrawest Winter Park Operations; court of appeals of Colorado, case was decided on February 13, 2014.
Facts: Christopher H. Norris was killed by an avalanche while skiing at Winter Park Resort. Wife and Salynda E Fleury sued the defendant, Intrawest Winter Park Operations. Ruling was that an avalanche is an inherent danger or risk of skiing and therefore Intrawest cannot be liable for Norris’s death.
Rationale: Intrawest cannot be forced with any liability because they themselves did not cause the avalanche. This will make the party who was taking part of the activity (Norris) responsible. By Norris going skiing he is assuming the risk of a potential risk because skiing can be hazardous and dangerous.
Blogger’s reaction: Blogger agrees and affirms that an avalanche fits the definition of inherent dangers and risks of skiing. Those dangers or conditions are part of the sport of skiing. The Ski Safety Act does not require ski area operations to warn skiers of possible avalanches or to close slopes with avalanche danger.
My thoughts: Ski Resort is not liable; while it was unfortunate he died he assumed the risk of skiing by choosing to do so. Also it was not required for resort to post warning signs of avalanches. The resort should not be liable for anything. However; the Ski Safety Act should be revised and requiring ski operations to warn about possible avalanches. Case #2: Moore vs. Minnesota Baseball Instructional School, 2009; court of appeals Minnesota, case filed March 31, 2009. Facts: Appellant Terry Moore initiated negligence action in district court on behalf of his minor son T.J. T.J.’s eyes was permanently injured while participating in baseball camp. District court granted summary judgment to respondent because appellant had signed a valid agreement releasing respondent from liability for T.j.’s eye prior to enrolling in camp. More Facts: Last day of camp T.J. had an option of relaxing in lounge or play in courtyard. He chose courtyard. T.J. and students started throwing woodchips at each other and T.J. got hit in the eye. Respondent cannot locate the form that T.J.’s mother had filled out prior to him enrolling. However, she does not deny filling out the form she just doesn’t recall filling it out. She must have filled it out through or else T.J. wouldn’t had been on the roster or able to enroll in camp. Rationale: T.J. couldn’t have participated unless a form was filled out. Form of assumption of risk his mother had filled out online and agreed to would have stated that all activities at the camp, injuries sustained the camp is not liable for. She agreed to the contract and she has the honor it. Blogger’s thoughts: T.J. mom had ability to negotiate contract, so blogger affirms. Public policy was not violated because exculpatory clause did not violate it, and no material fact in dispute. My thoughts: This was a very interesting case, for one the respondent could not come up with the actual form that the mother had filled out. Also the mother remembers filling out some kind of form but, could not identify the exact form she had filled out. She must have filled out the form because T.J. was on the roster and could not have participated without one. However, if I was a part of this case I would make the argument that there was no form. If you are an organization you should keep records and copies the parents fill out. Since it was untraceable, the contract did not exist. Therefore the camp would have been liable. I feel if the mother completely said she did not fill out the form the case would have been completely different.

Compare: Both cases were very similar in ways of combining sports and the assumption of risks. Assumption of risk was taken as a defense in these two cases implying the individual knew of the potential dangers of the particular activity and assumed the risk of possible injury. Christopher and T.J. both gotten hurt from participating in activity and they each lost their case. The Resort was not liable by law because they did no need to warn Christopher of the inherent risk, and T.J.’s mom agreed to the form which stated there could be possible injury, and camp was not liable.

Contrast: There were a few differences in these cases. Christopher’s wife tried to use negligence as their defense, stating the resort should have told them of the possible avalanche. While T.J.’s parents use the defense that since T.J. was not hurt playing baseball but, while partaking in another activity that the camp was liable. The Resort did not require Christopher to fill out a form because he voluntarily chose to go skiing and knew of the dangerous of it. While T.J. was a minor is mother agreed to form assuming the risk and dangerous of participating at the baseball camp. Resort had material evidence of the Ski Safety Act, saying resorts do not have to warn about avalanches; while camp could not provide material evidence of the actual form T.J.’s mom filled out. Both cases were very different when it came to defense and evidence.