A Michigan state appeals court has reversed a trial court, finding that a trial judge should not have granted a defendant skier’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to the state’s Ski Area Safety Act.
Specifically, the panel of judges held that the “assumption of risk” provision within the SASA does not automatically shield a defendant from a determination that he was negligent and subsequently liable for his role in a collision that resulted in injuries to the plaintiff.
The incident in question occurred at the Boyne Mountain Ski Resort on December 30, 2002. Plaintiff Toni Rusnak was making short, controlled slalom turns as she made her way down the slope. The defendant, Matt Walker, suddenly collided with her, causing injury.
After the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, pursuant to the SASA, the plaintiff appealed.
Early on in its analysis, the panel of judges noted that the SASA “clearly indicate(s) that collisions with other skiers is an obvious and necessary danger that inheres in the sport.”
However, it “provides for liability against any skier who ‘violates this act,’ with liability being limited to ‘that portion of the loss or damage resulting from that violation.’”
In the instant case, “because plaintiff has produced evidence that defendant may have violated his duties under the SASA, as well as evidence that those violations may have caused plaintiff’s injuries, defendant may still be liable to plaintiff for ‘that portion of the loss or damage resulting from that violation.’ MCL 408.344.”
“The court went on to summarize its conclusion as follows: “when a plaintiff has adequately plead or proven that an incident occurred because of a defendant’s violation of the SASA, those actions of the defendant are relevant for purposes of determining the allocation of fault – and thus damages – between the plaintiff and defendant. Under this view, the plain language of the entire SASA is given force and effect. Not only is this reading consistent with the plain language of the relevant sections, but it also conforms to the legislative purpose in enacting the SASA, i.e., to reduce liability against ski operators while at the same time placing many, but not all, risks of skiing with the individual skiers. Anderson, supra at 23; McGoldrick, supra at 295-296; Hakari v Ski Brule, Inc, 230 Mich. App. 352, 356; 584 N.W.2d 345 (1998). With this in mind, we hold that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the basis of the assumption of risk provision alone.”
Toni Rusnak v. Matt Walker; Ct, App.Mich.; No. 264671; 2006 Mich. App. LEXIS 3641; 12/19/06
