Can Utah ski resorts use liability waivers to avoid negligence claims? Rothstein v. Snowbird Explained

In Rothstein v. Snowbird, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether ski resorts can use pre-injury liability releases to shield themselves from ordinary negligence claims, delivering a significant ruling that protects recreational users while clarifying the scope of Utah’s Inherent Risks of Skiing Act.

Background and Facts

William Rothstein, an expert skier, collided with an unmarked retaining wall while skiing at Snowbird Ski Resort, sustaining severe injuries including broken ribs, kidney damage, and a collapsed lung. The wall was camouflaged by snow and lacked adequate warnings despite Snowbird’s knowledge of its location. Rothstein had signed two liability releases when purchasing his season pass and Seven Summits Club membership, both purporting to release Snowbird from liability for its ordinary negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for Snowbird based on these releases.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether pre-injury releases protecting ski area operators from ordinary negligence liability violate Utah public policy as expressed in the Inherent Risks of Skiing Act. The court also considered the relationship between contractual freedom and tort liability, and how legislative policy statements should guide judicial interpretation of release agreements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that the liability releases violated public policy and were unenforceable. The court analyzed the Inherent Risks of Skiing Act, which was designed to make liability insurance affordable for ski operators by clarifying which risks are inherent to skiing. The Legislature’s stated purpose was to address an insurance crisis threatening Utah’s economically important ski industry. The court concluded that allowing ski operators to use releases to avoid purchasing the very insurance the Act was designed to make affordable would breach the “public policy bargain” underlying the statute. The Act contemplated that operators would obtain insurance coverage for non-inherent risks, including their own negligence.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts recreational liability law in Utah. Ski resorts and similar operators cannot rely on broad liability releases to escape accountability for ordinary negligence. The ruling demonstrates how courts will examine statutory schemes to identify public policy that may invalidate otherwise valid contracts. For practitioners, this case emphasizes the importance of analyzing relevant legislative policy statements when challenging liability releases, and shows that contractual freedom has limits when it conflicts with clear legislative intent regarding insurance and public safety.