This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A skier lost control while skiing at Ski Apache Resort and collided with a plainly visible ski lift tower, which lacked protective padding or netting. The skier sustained injuries, and the plaintiffs alleged that the ski area operator failed to warn of or mitigate the risks posed by the unprotected lift tower (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: Dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, holding that the New Mexico Ski Safety Act barred recovery because the skier assumed the risks inherent in skiing, including collisions with plainly visible lift towers (headnotes, para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the Ski Safety Act did not preclude their claims and that the ski area operator breached statutory duties to warn of or mitigate hazards, such as the unprotected lift tower. They also contended that comparative negligence principles should apply to apportion fault between the skier and the operator (paras 8, 12, 30).
- Defendants-Appellees: Asserted that the Ski Safety Act provided the exclusive remedy, codified the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, and barred recovery for injuries caused by inherent risks, including collisions with plainly visible lift towers. They argued that the skier assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law (paras 9, 19-20).
Legal Issues
- Does the New Mexico Ski Safety Act provide the exclusive remedy for claims against ski area operators, precluding common law negligence claims?
- Can comparative negligence principles apply under the Ski Safety Act when both the skier and the ski area operator are alleged to have breached statutory duties?
- Did the ski area operator breach its statutory duties under the Ski Safety Act to warn of or mitigate hazards posed by the unprotected lift tower?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 44).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Apodaca J. concurring):
The court held that the New Mexico Ski Safety Act does not bar all claims against ski area operators and that comparative negligence principles apply when both the skier and the operator are alleged to have breached statutory duties (paras 12, 25-26). The Act imposes duties on ski area operators to warn of or correct particular hazards known to them where feasible, and the plaintiffs raised material factual issues regarding whether the unprotected lift tower constituted such a hazard (paras 33-36). The court emphasized that the Act does not relieve operators of liability for breaches of statutory duties that causally contribute to a skier's injuries (paras 28, 39).
Special Concurrence by Apodaca J.:
Apodaca J. agreed with the majority but emphasized that the Act's language and New Mexico's adoption of comparative negligence principles support the application of comparative fault in cases involving breaches of statutory duties by both skiers and operators (paras 46-53).
Dissent by Bivins J.:
Bivins J. dissented, arguing that the skier assumed the risk of colliding with the plainly visible lift tower as a matter of law under the Ski Safety Act. He contended that the Act does not impose a duty on ski area operators to pad or warn of plainly visible lift towers, as they are inherent risks of skiing (paras 54-79). He expressed concern that the majority's interpretation undermines the Act's purpose of balancing responsibilities between skiers and operators and could lead to absurd results, such as requiring padding for all natural and man-made objects on ski slopes (paras 69-70, 79).