Utah Supreme Court
Can parents release their minor children's negligence claims in Utah? Rutherford v. Talisker Explained
Summary
Ten-year-old Levi Rutherford was injured when he skied into machine-made snow during ski team practice at The Canyons resort. His parents sued for negligence and premises liability. The district court granted partial summary judgment to the Rutherfords, finding a preinjury release signed by Levi’s father unenforceable and concluding that disputed material facts existed regarding the Act’s machine-made snow exemption.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In a significant decision affecting both recreational liability and parental authority, the Utah Supreme Court in Rutherford v. Talisker reaffirmed that preinjury releases signed by parents on behalf of minor children violate Utah public policy and are unenforceable.
Background and Facts
Ten-year-old Levi Rutherford was injured during ski team practice at The Canyons resort when he skied into a mound of sticky, wet, machine-made snow. His father had previously signed an “Assumption of Risk and Release of Liability” on Levi’s behalf as part of ski team registration. The release purported to waive Levi’s right to sue for injuries due to any reason, including negligence. The Rutherfords filed suit against the ski resort, which argued the claims were barred by both the release and Utah’s Inherent Risks of Skiing Act.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two primary legal questions: (1) whether a parent can release a minor child’s prospective negligence claims, and (2) how Utah’s Inherent Risks of Skiing Act should be interpreted and applied, particularly regarding machine-made snow as an enumerated “inherent risk.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court unanimously held that the preinjury release was unenforceable, relying on Hawkins ex rel. Hawkins v. Peart (2001). The court emphasized that Utah law provides various checks on parental authority to protect children’s interests, noting that parents lack a general unilateral right to compromise a child’s existing causes of action without court approval. Under the Uniform Probate Code, parents may act as conservators only when appointed by the court, not as a matter of right.
Regarding the Inherent Risks of Skiing Act, the court clarified the standard from Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort (1991), establishing that enumerated risks in the Act are inherent risks of skiing only when encountered in ways that skiers would reasonably expect. The court rejected a blanket interpretation that would automatically bar all claims for listed risks, instead requiring a case-by-case analysis.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces important protections for minors in recreational activities. Practitioners should note that Utah maintains strong public policy protections for children that cannot be waived by parents, even in high-risk recreational contexts. The decision also provides greater clarity for skiing injury cases, establishing an objective “reasonable expectation” test for determining when enumerated risks truly constitute inherent risks of skiing.
Case Details
Case Name
Rutherford v. Talisker
Citation
2019 UT 27
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20140917
Date Decided
June 27, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Remanded
Holding
Preinjury releases signed by parents on behalf of minor children violate Utah public policy and are unenforceable, and the Inherent Risks of Skiing Act requires a case-by-case analysis to determine whether enumerated risks are truly integral to the sport of skiing.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law, giving no deference to the court of appeals’ conclusions of law. For cross-motions for summary judgment, facts viewed in the light most favorable to the losing party.
Practice Tip
When challenging preinjury releases involving minors, emphasize that Utah law provides various statutory checks on parental authority to protect children’s interests, and courts generally require appointment of a conservator for minors’ causes of action.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.