Does Utah law allow ski resorts to require liability waivers from competitive skiers? Rutherford v. Talisker Canyons Finance Explained

In Rutherford v. Talisker Canyons Finance, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether ski resorts can enforce pre-injury liability releases against competitive skiers under Utah’s Inherent Risks of Skiing Act. The court’s decision provides important guidance on the scope of the Act’s protections and the enforceability of liability waivers in skiing contexts.

Background and Facts

Ten-year-old Levi Rutherford was a member of the Summit Ski Team training at the Canyons ski resort. During what the parties agreed was racing practice, Levi collided with a mound of machine-made snow and sustained injuries. The ski resort argued it was protected by the Act’s machine-made snow exemption and by a USSA liability release that Levi’s father had signed. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the Rutherfords, finding disputed facts precluded summary judgment on the machine-made snow issue and that the release was unenforceable under Utah law.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether Levi was engaged in competitive skiing at the time of injury, (2) whether the Act’s machine-made snow exemption barred the negligence claims, and (3) whether the USSA pre-injury release was enforceable against the ski resort under Utah law.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court vacated the trial court’s finding that Levi was not engaged in competitive skiing, noting this contradicted the parties’ undisputed statements that he was injured during racing practice. On the machine-made snow exemption, the court affirmed that disputed facts about whether the snowmaking equipment was functioning properly precluded summary judgment, following the Clover v. Snowbird precedent requiring case-by-case analysis of whether risks are truly inherent. Most significantly, the court held that Utah’s Act prohibits pre-injury releases by ski-area operators from both competitive and recreational skiers, rejecting the release entirely based on the Act’s public policy statement.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that the 2006 amendment to Utah’s Inherent Risks of Skiing Act, which expanded coverage to include competitive skiing activities, was intended to provide equal protection to competitive and recreational skiers rather than to allow different treatment. Practitioners should note that the Act’s exemptions require careful factual analysis—merely showing that a condition appears on the Act’s list of inherent risks does not automatically bar recovery if the specific circumstances involve equipment malfunction or other factors that could be addressed through reasonable care.