Whitefish, Montana — The Montana Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that could the impact the future of ski resorts in the state.
Courthouse News Service reported earlier this month that the Montana Supreme Court is hearing a case that could weaken the Montana Skier Responsibility Act.
Back in 2019, Mark Mullee was skiing down the Big Mountain in order to grab the phone that he had forgotten in his car. He’s described as a competent skier who’s shredded for many years. While skiing on a green trail that was designated as a slow zone, he caught an edge, leading him to fall off a cliff area and break his pelvis. Usually, the area where Mark crashed into is guarded by a fabric fence. He sued Whitefish Mountain Resort for negligence, alleging that if there was one there, it would have stopped him from breaking his pelvis.
Whitefish Mountain Resort has a different perspective. The Montana ski resort claims that the fence was in place and that it was not intended to stop someone who was going at a high speed.
The case was previously heard by the Flathead County District Court, which sided with Whitefish. Mullee appealed to the state’s Supreme Court, arguing that there was not a fence there due to it being knocked down by a groomer.
Oral arguments were heard by the Montana Supreme Court at Montana State University on March 6th as part of National Law Day.
Among those skeptical of the lawsuit was Montana Supreme Court justice Ingrid Gustafson, who challenged Mullee’s attorney, Ian Gillespie, about the responsibilities of the ski resort:
“If you want to shut down all the risks in a ski hill, you just shut the ski hill down. That’s kind of the point or the attractiveness of doing it is this element of danger.”
The attorney representing Whitefish, Mikel Moore, also recognized the risks that skiers need to acknowledge before hitting the slopes:
“ It is an act that recognizes, through common sense, the reality of operating a voluntary recreational activity on a mountain. There are literally innumerable risks. And they cannot all be mitigated… My argument is there’s no duty to have any fence in this location. Because this is one of innumerable hazards on the mountain, fully recognized by the legislature in as clear a public policy statement as you’re ever going to get… ”
As is the case with other states that have ski resorts, there’s a liability law in Montana that’s supposed to protect lift operators. Here’s what Montana statute says about a skier’s responsibility and liability when skiing:
“A skier shall accept all legal responsibility for injury or damage of any kind to the extent that the injury or damage results from inherent dangers and risks of skiing. Nothing in this part may be construed to limit a skier’s right to hold another skier legally accountable for damages caused by the other skier.”
As demonstrated by a case that’s being heard by Idaho’s Supreme Court, rulings in favor of injured skiers would probably lead to an increase in insurance costs for ski areas, resulting in the risk of smaller operations closing.
Personally, I see falling off a cliff, ledge, or section of a trail as an inherent danger of skiing. Ultimately, it’s up to the judges of Montana’s Supreme Court to determine whether this case is applicable under this law as well.
Image/Video Credits: Whitefish Mountain Resort, MSUSUBStream
