Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitnegligenceliabilityprecedentmotionsummary judgmentleasemotion for summary judgment
negligenceliabilitystatuteprecedentlease

Related Cases

Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102, 559 N.E.2d 705
View Case »
Duggin v. Adams, 234 Va. 221, 360 S.E.2d 832
View Case »
Grube v. Bethlehem Area School Dist., 550 F.Supp. 418, 7 Ed. Law Rep. 582
View Case »
Schaffner v. Glencoe Park Dist., 256 F.3d 616, 86 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 165, 80 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,638
View Case »
Mercer v. Duke University, 401 F.3d 199, 196 Ed. Law Rep. 104
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rutherford v. Talisker Canyons Finance, Co., LLC, 445 P.3d 474, 2019 UT 27

Facts

Young Levi Rutherford, an advanced skier, was injured when he collided with a mound of machine-made snow at The Canyons ski resort. His parents filed a lawsuit against Talisker Canyons Finance Company for negligence and premises liability, claiming that the resort's actions led to Levi's injuries. The district court denied Talisker's motion for summary judgment, ruling that a release signed by Levi's father was unenforceable under Utah law. The court also found that there were disputed facts regarding the applicability of the Inherent Risks of Skiing Act's machine-made snow exemption.

Young Levi Rutherford crashed and was injured when he skied into a patch of thick, wet, machine-made snow. His parents brought claims for negligence and premises liability on his behalf against Talisker Canyons Finance Company and ASC Utah (collectively, Talisker).

Issue

Rule

Under Utah law, a parent cannot release a minor child's prospective claims for negligence due to public policy. The Inherent Risks of Skiing Act does not categorically bar recovery for injuries caused by risks enumerated in the Act; instead, a secondary inquiry is required to determine if the risks are inherent to skiing as intended by the legislature.

Based on public policy, a parent cannot release his or her minor child's prospective claims for negligence; this rule is altered only when a statute is amended to make such releases enforceable.

Analysis

The court applied the precedent set in Hawkins ex rel. Hawkins v. Peart, which established that a parent cannot release a minor's claims for negligence. The court also referenced Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, which requires a case-by-case analysis to determine if a risk is inherent to skiing. The court found that there were material facts in dispute regarding whether the machine-made snow constituted an inherent risk of skiing, thus precluding summary judgment.

The district court read this court's precedent in Rothstein v. Snowbird Corp., 2007 UT 96, 175 P.3d 560, as meaning that all preinjury releases for recreational skiing are unenforceable, while, pursuant to Berry v. Greater Park City Co., 2007 UT 87, 171 P.3d 442, abrogated on other grounds by Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd., 2017 UT 54, 423 P.3d 1150, preinjury releases for competitive skiing are enforceable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the release signed by Levi's father was unenforceable and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.

The release signed by Levi's father violates public policy and is not enforceable.

Who won?

The Rutherfords prevailed in this case as the court upheld the lower court's ruling that the release signed by Levi's father was unenforceable under Utah public policy. The court emphasized that allowing a parent to release a minor's claims for negligence would violate public policy, thus protecting the rights of minors in negligence claims. The court also found that there were unresolved factual issues regarding the inherent risks of skiing, which further supported the Rutherfords' position.

The Rutherfords prevailed in this case as the court upheld the lower court's ruling that the release signed by Levi's father was unenforceable under Utah public policy.

You must be