TLDR: If you’re suing Vail, don’t go to Vail. Photo: JResnick215 // Unsplash
A Colorado court has ruled against a Texas man who signed two liability waivers after filing a lawsuit against Vail Resorts. Though the case is settled, opinions are split as to whether this will have a wider-ranging impact on resorts’ ability to avoid responsibility for injuries by using broadly-written liability waivers.
Back in 2020, John Litterer was visiting the Breckenridge Ski Resort when he was hit by an employee driving a snowmobile. In response, Litterer filed a complaint against Vail Resorts subsidiary Vail Summit Resorts Inc., asserting that the crash was a result of negligence on the part of the snowmobile operator and the resort.
However, the fact that Litterer was suing the resort for negligence did not dissuade him from returning to Breckenridge for another ski trip. To that end, he bought an Epic Pass the same year he was injured, and then again in 2022. Unfortunately for him, in doing so, he signed a waiver that stated he would give up any claims he had against Vail.
Because he had signed that waiver, the Summit County District Court and Colorado Court of Appeals both dismissed Litterer’s case. However, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, giving Litterer one last shot. Unfortunately for him, they did not rule in his favor.
“Litterer electronically signed the waiver, which was a condition of using the ski pass at a (Vail Resorts’) resort during the 2022-23 ski season,” wrote Justice Maria Berkenkotter in the majority opinion, in which she was joined by Chief Justice Monica Márquez, Justice Brian Boatright and Justice Susan Blanco. “In doing so, Litterer unambiguously agreed to ‘waive any and all claims’ to access (Vail Resorts’) resorts during the 2022-23 ski season. What’s more, because a party who signs a contract is presumed to know its contents, Litterer could not avoid his contractual obligations by claiming he didn’t read the agreement.”
Three of the justices felt that the ruling was unfair, though, and could have wider-ranging implications for the ability of resorts to avoid litigation from injured visitors. “Under today’s ruling, the ski industry may avoid a limitless range of liability — including liability for damages caused by its gross negligence and willful and wanton conduct and for causes of action that injured parties do not even know that they have — by burying exceptionally broad release language in the click-through, lengthy boilerplate document that unwitting patrons check off when they buy their ski passes,” wrote Justice Richard Gabriel in the dissent.
