Is expert testimony required in ski resort negligence cases? Callister v. Snowbird Corp. Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Callister v. Snowbird Corp. addressed when expert testimony is required to establish negligence claims against ski resorts, providing important guidance for personal injury practitioners handling recreational facility liability cases.

Background and Facts

Bradley Callister was skiing at Snowbird when he stopped near tram tower #3 to remove debris from his eye. While stationary and facing uphill, an approaching aerial tram or something attached beneath it struck him from behind, causing significant injuries. Callister sued Snowbird for negligence, alleging the resort failed to adequately rope off the area, provide warning signs about low-passing trams, or dig out snow where the incident occurred. After missing expert witness designation deadlines, Snowbird moved for summary judgment, arguing Callister could not prove negligence without expert testimony.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three main issues: (1) whether expert testimony was necessary to establish the standard of care for ski resort safety operations; (2) whether the res ipsa loquitur doctrine could substitute for expert testimony; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Callister’s request to extend discovery deadlines for expert witness designation.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, holding that expert testimony was required because the applicable standard of care involved “specialized equipment and operations” beyond lay juror knowledge. Following Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, the court explained that expert testimony is necessary when juries would otherwise be “forced to speculate” about industry standards. The court rejected Callister’s res ipsa loquitur argument as inadequately preserved, noting he failed to raise it until the summary judgment hearing and made specific negligence allegations that required him to provide adequate notice of reliance on the doctrine.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that negligence claims against recreational facilities with specialized operations typically require expert testimony to establish industry standards. Practitioners should designate qualified experts early in discovery and avoid relying solely on common sense arguments about obvious safety measures. When invoking res ipsa loquitur, attorneys must provide adequate notice in pleadings or early motion practice rather than raising it for the first time at summary judgment hearings.