Can ski resorts enforce preinjury liability releases for competitive events? Berry v. Greater Park City Company Explained

The Utah Supreme Court in Berry v. Greater Park City Company addressed the enforceability of preinjury liability releases in the context of competitive skiing and provided important guidance on gross negligence claims.

Background and Facts

James Gordon Berry, an expert skier, was paralyzed during a skiercross race at Park City Mountain Resort when he fell while attempting a tabletop jump. Before participating, Berry signed a release of liability that purported to release the resort from claims arising from its negligence. Berry sued for ordinary negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether the preinjury release was enforceable; (2) whether summary judgment was appropriate on the gross negligence claim; and (3) whether participants in abnormally dangerous activities can recover under strict liability theories.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the Tunkl test to determine whether the skiercross race implicated sufficient public interest to invalidate the release. Finding that competitive skiercross racing was not suitable for public regulation, not essential to the public, and did not involve decisive bargaining power advantages that mattered given the activity’s non-essential nature, the court held the release was enforceable.

However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the gross negligence claim, holding that without an identified standard of care in the record, courts cannot assess whether conduct constitutes “utter indifference to consequences” as required for gross negligence. The court emphasized that identification of the proper standard of care is a necessary precondition to evaluating any negligence claim.

For the strict liability claim, the court affirmed dismissal on the ground that participants in abnormally dangerous activities cannot recover under strict liability theories, regardless of whether the activity qualifies as abnormally dangerous.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that Utah recognizes the general enforceability of preinjury releases but subjects them to public interest analysis under the Tunkl factors. For gross negligence claims, practitioners must ensure the record contains evidence of the applicable standard of care before seeking or opposing summary judgment. The ruling also confirms that participants in activities cannot use strict liability theories against the activity sponsors, providing important protection for recreational and competitive event organizers.