Summary 2006 WY 156

Summary of Decision issued December 19, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp. v. Rohrman

Citation: 2006 WY 156

Docket Number: 05-290

W.R.A.P. 11 Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, The Honorable William F. Downes, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Mikel L. Moore of Christensen, Moore, Cockrell, Cummings & Axelber, P.C., Kalispell, Montana; and James K. Lubing and Carter Wilkinson of Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): W. Keith Goody of Alpine, Wyoming; and Robert E. Schroth of Jackson, Wyoming.

The Certified Question: When faced with motions for summary judgment in which there are no genuine issues of material fact, how should a court differentiate as a matter of law, between “inherent risks” as defined in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-122(a)(i) and employed in § 1-1-123(a) and (b), and non-inherent risks in order to determine whether a recreational provider has a duty to eliminate, alter or control the risk at issue?

Statement of Alleged Facts Relevant to the Question Certified: From the federal district court: This case arises out of a ski injury that Plaintiff suffered on March 2, 2000 at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort (JHMR). Plaintiff is a resident of Colorado and JHMR is a Wyoming corporation. The case comes to this Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1332 diversity jurisdiction. At the time of his injury, Plaintiff was 24 years old and by his own definition, an experienced skier…He attempted to jump a “table top” in the JMHR terrain park. He alleges that the jump was icier than he could have known from looking at it, and that because of the ice, he lost control and could not land the jump. He suffered several breaks in his left arm and injuries to his thoracic spine…

Two days before this accident, another young man, Adam Harshman, died of injuries sustained after taking off from the other side of the same jump. Plaintiff alleges that JHMR had a duty to close the jump or warn of the dangers because they were not inherent risks of the sport. Defendant JHMR asserts that losing control on a table top jump is a risk inherent in skiing terrain parks and therefore, JHMR owed Plaintiff no duty.

Discussion: The Court referred to the Wyoming Recreational Safety Act § 1-1-122 and 1-1-123. Also, the Court referred to their recently decided case, Muller v. Jackson Hole Mtn. Resort, which posed related issues. The general standard applied to the granting of a motion for summary judgment or a directed verdict in a negligence case is that only in the clearest of cases when the facts are undisputed and it is plain that all reasonable persons can draw but one inference from them, that the question is ever one of law for the court.

The Court stated they did not intend to equate “inherent risk” with “negligence”. If reasonable minds cannot differ as to whether or not a given set of factual circumstances involve an “inherent risk” of skiing, then the protections of the RSA apply and the litigation of that controversy must come to an end. The Court set out several statutory sources to assist in understanding what is intended by the phrase. They considered the definitions of “inherent risks of skiing” enacted by the legislators of states similarly situated to Wyoming and also looked to safety experts and experienced skiers. They specifically referred to Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-44-103 (3.5), N.M. Stat. § 24-15-10 and Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-52. The Court concluded that Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 34-19-101 through 34-19-107 were not applicable to the analysis and did not discuss them further.

The Court concluded that if the facts are such that they are undisputed, and it is plain that all reasonable persons can draw but one inference from them (in light of the definitions and case interpretations set out) then the trial court should either grant a properly filed motion for summary judgment or for directed verdict. However, if the facts do not reach that lofty bar, then the question is properly one for the jury to decide with the guidance of appropriate instructions, or for the trial court to decide if trial is to the court.

J. Burke special concurrence, joined by D. J. Kautz: J. Burke agreed with the primary conclusion reached by the majority capsulized in the third paragraph of the opinion. He stated his concerns regarding the majority’s conclusion that statutes defining “inherent risks of skiing” in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah are a “potential source of guidance for both trial courts in acting on motions to dismiss/summary judgment, as well as for juries in their deliberations.” He stated that he was unaware of any tenet of statutory construction which justified an approach that decisions regarding summary judgment be determined “in light of the definitions” provided in statutes from those states. He stated that in determining whether a specific fact situation involves an inherent risk of a recreational activity under Wyoming law, the Court must apply the definition enacted by the Wyoming legislature as set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-122(a)(i), not the definition deemed appropriate by legislatures of other states.

Also, in light of the Court’s holding in Muller, and that the Wyoming statute allows for the consideration of a wider assortment of facts in determining whether an inherent risk exists, the majority’s reliance upon the Colorado statute was difficult to understand. If the Wyoming legislature deems it appropriate to revise its definition, the statutory definitions of inherent risk enacted by other states may be of interest and provide guidance to the legislature. Those statutes are not however, a proper source of guidance for courts attempting to determine the meaning of inherent risk as stated in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-122(a)(i).

J. Hill delivered the answer.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/y85j6t .