A majority of justices within the Supreme Court of Michigan have reversed an appeals court, and granted summary judgment to a ski resort, which was sued after an alpine skier injured himself on a snowboarding rail.
Central to the majority’s finding was that the courts do not distinguish between types of skier, be it alpine or snowboarder, and that, pursuant to the Ski Area Safety Act of 1962 (SASA), “each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts the dangers that inhere in that sport insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. . . .” MCL 408.342(2).
The majority disagreed with the appeals court, which, in citing Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc, 469 Mich. 20; 664 N.W.2d 756 (2003), concluded that “a snowboard rail constitutes a danger a skier assumes while engaged in snowboarding, but an alpine skier should not be deemed to have assumed such a risk since snowboard rails are not inherent in or necessary to the sport of downhill skiing.”
The dissenters on the high court claimed that “the reasoning on which the majority bases its decision to reverse is fundamentally flawed.” Instead of focusing its energies, however, on the presumption that skiers accept the risks of all types of skiing when they step on the slopes, it questions whether a snowboarding rail (a metal bar used by snowboarders to slide or grind across the snow while performing a variety of tricks) is an “obvious and necessary danger that inheres in the sport of skiing as a whole.
“While I have no doubt that it is enjoyable to ride a snowboarding rail, I fail to see how a snowboarding rail is essential to the sport of skiing. There are numerous skiing events, even a number of events that specifically relate only to snowboarding, that have nothing to do with riding a snowboarding rail. Further, as confirmed at oral argument, defendant no longer even has a snowboarding rail at its facility. So for the majority to reverse because it believes that a snowboarding rail is an inherent danger that is obvious and necessary to skiing when the sport of skiing is routinely engaged in without snowboarding rails and defendant no longer even has a rail ignores the nature of the sport and the facts of this case.
“Further, I also believe that it is unreasonable to conclude that a snowboarding rail that at its highest point was approximately 14 inches off the ground is an obvious and necessary danger inherent in the sport of skiing. The statute lists examples of obvious and necessary dangers, such as ski lift towers, other skiers, and properly marked or plainly visible pieces of snow-making or snow-grooming equipment. A snowboarding rail measured in inches is certainly not akin to a ski lift tower or properly marked or plainly visible piece of snow-making or snow-grooming equipment so that it can be classified as an obvious and necessary danger inherent in the sport of skiing.”
Matthew Barrett v. Mt. Brighton, Inc.; Supreme Court of Michigan; SC: 126544; 474 Mich. 1087; 712 N.W.2d 154; 2006 Mich. LEXIS 514; 3/24/06
