Faith Keresztessy v. Mount Snow, Ltd., Vail Resorts, Inc., The Vail Corporation, Peak Resorts, Inc., and VR NE Holdings, LLC

Keresztessy · United States District Court for the District of Vermont · January 13, 2026 · No. 2:22-cv-204

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Vermont denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Faith Keresztessy’s negligence action arising from her fall at Mount Snow. The court held that Plaintiff became a trespasser when she entered a closed ski-lift area marked with a rope and a “KEEP OUT” sign, but concluded that a jury could find the Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of constant trespass onto closed lifts, potentially triggering an exception to the general no-duty rule owed to trespassers.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Vermont
Writing for the Court
Mary Kay Lanthier
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Vermont
Decision date
January 13, 2026
Docket number
2:22-cv-204
Procedural posture
Defendants moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence claim, arguing that Plaintiff was trespassing and that the alleged danger was open and obvious. The court denied the motion.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must resolve ambiguities and draw permissible factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and may not resolve disputed factual issues or weigh competing evidence.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Defendants: Mount Snow, Ltd.; Vail Resorts, Inc.; The Vail Corporation; Peak Resorts, Inc.; and VR NE Holdings, LLC v. Faith Keresztessy
Disposition
other

Topics

summary judgmentpremises liabilitynegligenceduty of carecivil procedure

Practice areas

negligencepremises liabilitypersonal injurysummary judgmentcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff was a trespasser, rather than an invitee, when she entered the Sundance lift structure despite a rope barrier and a KEEP OUT sign.
  2. Whether the evidence created a triable issue under the constant-trespass exception to the general rule that possessors of land owe no duty of care to trespassers.
  3. Whether the danger posed by the missing railing was open and obvious as a matter of law.
  4. Whether Defendants exercised reasonable care to warn trespassers of the specific risk that caused Plaintiff's injury.
  5. Whether Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence claim.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff became a trespasser as a matter of law when she stepped over the rope and the sign instructing visitors to KEEP OUT and entered the Sundance lift structure.
  2. Although Plaintiff was a trespasser, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of repeated trespasses onto a limited area consisting of the Sundance lift and similar ski lifts, potentially triggering a duty under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 335.
  3. The court could not determine as a matter of law that the missing railing and resulting fall hazard were open and obvious; a genuine factual dispute required resolution by the jury.
  4. Whether Defendants exercised reasonable care to warn trespassers of the specific danger associated with the Sundance lift was a question for the jury because the sign may have warned only that the lift could start, not that a person could fall through an unguarded opening.

Key quotations

Whether Defendants exercised reasonable care to warn trespassers of dangers associated with the Sundance lift is an issue for a jury. (at 20)
Reasonable minds can come to different conclusions on each element of Section 335 such that the court cannot grant summary judgment. (at 21)
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (at 21)

Factual background

On September 20, 2020, Faith Keresztessy visited Mount Snow in Vermont and purchased a ticket to ride a chairlift. She entered the area of the non-operational Sundance lift after stepping over a rope and a sign stating, "DANGER! This lift could start at any time. KEEP OUT," then climbed stairs to a metal landing to take photographs. She fell backward through an access point without a railing or protective barrier, sustaining vertebral fractures, paraplegia, and related complications. Evidence indicated that Mount Snow employees had observed multiple prior instances of visitors trespassing onto non-operational lifts and that Defendants had identified the missing railing as a hazard before the accident.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a negligence action after falling from a metal landing associated with a non-operational chairlift at Mount Snow. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiff opposed the motion. The court concluded that Plaintiff was a trespasser as a matter of law but that genuine disputes existed regarding the constant-trespass exception, the nature and obviousness of the danger, and whether Defendants exercised reasonable care to warn of the risk.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…