By Russell Romriell
Ray Patrick Willig was an experienced snowboarder riding down the slopes at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area on the morning of November 11, 2000. It was a sunny day and the snow was fresh. Although conditions were good, during his second run the snowboard hit something that caused Willig to fall, resulting in two somersaults and a back injury which has left him paralyzed below the waist. No one saw what actually caused the fall.
Willig later claimed that a wire protruding through the snow had caught hold of his board and caused the fall. The wire had been discovered three weeks later after about nine inches of snow melted. In dispute was the location of the wire in regards to the crash.
The ski patroller who helped Willig after he had been injured failed to follow proper procedures by not asking Willig what caused the fall, by not properly marking the scene of the accident, and by not recording information from the victim. A private investigator hired by Willig’s father returned to the scene of the accident three weeks later with Willig’s friend (who had been with Willig after the fall) and discovered the wire protruding up from the snow. The investigator found that Willig fell below the wire, and concluded that the wire caused the fall. However, the ski patroller testified that the fall occurred above the wire, and although the reports were incomplete, he had returned with his supervisor only four hours after the accident and took pictures of the area.
Although Willig’s suit originally included claims for negligence and willful misconduct, the court had previously entered summary judgment for the negligence claim and proceeded only on the willful misconduct claim. Willig argued that Mammoth had failed to follow proper safety precautions that, if followed, could have prevented his injury. For example, Mammoth has a policy that requires ski patrollers to ski the slopes every morning to identify any potential hazards. However, on November 11 there was no record indicating that a patroller had skied St. Anton (the run on which Willig was injured). Willig also claimed that the failure to properly maintain the erosion control device from which the wire protruded and the failure to properly mark the location of the accident and failure to provide a specific description in the accident report constituted willful misconduct by Mammoth.
Although the trial court and the appellate court agreed that Willig proved that Mammoth had committed willful misconduct, the jury was not convinced that the wire caused the fall. On appeal, Willig argued that he was not allowed to claim that anything other than the wire caused the fall, and hoped to be granted a new trial. The appellate court did not grant him a new trial, however, explaining that a theory of liability is independent from the factual issue of causation. So even though Willig had proved that Mammoth was liable due to committing willful misconduct, without causation the liability is meaningless.
Willig argued that the summary judgment that prevented him from arguing for negligence also prevented him from presenting evidence to show other possible causes to his accident. However, the court points out that he was prevented from arguing for negligence as a theory of liability, not causation. There was nothing that prevented him from proposing additional causes under the theory of willful misconduct. The court also points out that even if he had argued for an alternative cause to the accident, it is not clear that he would have prevailed. The other possible causes mentioned by Willig included hitting a bare spot, a rock, or a tree log, and there are a large number of cases that state that these are all inherent risks in the sport of skiing and that resorts have no duty to eliminate or mitigate those risks.
In the end, although Mammoth was found to have committed willful misconduct, without proving that the wire actually caused the fall there was no causation connected to the liability. It is just a tragic accident that has left a skilled snowboarder paralyzed and in a wheelchair.
Ray Patrick Willig et al., v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area; Ct. App. Calif., 3d App. Dist.; C053715, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 586; 1/27/10
Romriell is a third year law student at the University of Texas School of Law.
