Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for entry of summary disposition in favor of Mt. Brighton. The Court held that, under the Ski Area Safety Act, an alpine skier accepts the risks associated with all types of skiing, including risks posed by a snowboarding rail, and found no relevant statutory violation. Separate opinions dissented from the reversal and questioned whether a snowboarding rail is an obvious, necessary, and inherent danger of skiing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether, under the Ski Area Safety Act of 1962, an alpine skier assumes the risks associated with all types of skiing, including dangers associated with snowboarding.
- Whether a snowboarding rail is an obvious and necessary danger inherent in the sport of skiing under MCL 408.342(2).
- Whether an alleged violation of MCL 408.326a(c) or (e) supported liability or precluded summary disposition for defendant.
Holdings
- Under the Ski Area Safety Act, a person engaged in alpine skiing accepts the risks associated with all types of skiing, including snowboarding.
- The Livingston Circuit Court should have granted defendant's motion for summary disposition because plaintiff, while alpine skiing, accepted the risks associated with all types of skiing, including snowboarding.
- There was no violation of MCL 408.326a(c) or (e); alternatively, even if a violation had occurred, plaintiff failed to show that he would have stayed off the snowboard run had he known its degree of difficulty.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, plaintiff, while engaged in alpine skiing, is held to have accepted the risks associated with all types of skiing, including snowboarding.” (712 N.W.2d at 155)
“The Livingston Circuit Court should have granted defendant's motion for summary disposition on this ground.” (712 N.W.2d at 155)
“We further agree with the Court of Appeals dissent that there was no violation of MCL 408.326a(c) and (e)” (712 N.W.2d at 155)
Factual background
Matthew Barrett was injured while alpine skiing at Mt. Brighton, apparently on or near a snowboarding rail. The rail was approximately 14 inches high at its highest point, and the defendant later no longer maintained a snowboarding rail at the facility. Barrett alleged a statutory violation concerning the ski run, but the court concluded that the record did not support a causal connection between any violation and his decision to use the run.
Procedural history
The Livingston Circuit Court denied or failed to grant defendant's motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals affirmed or otherwise entered judgment for plaintiff, holding that an alpine skier did not assume the risk posed by a snowboarding rail. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed on the reasoning of the Court of Appeals dissent and remanded for entry of judgment for defendant.
Remand instructions
Remand to the Livingston Circuit Court for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of Mt. Brighton, Inc.