We always hear about the importance of wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle, motorcycle, scooters and skateboards, but we rarely consider the importance of wearing one when skiing or snowboarding. Skiing and snowboarding are considered high intensity sports and participating in these sports can lead to serious injuries. According to The New York Times, wearing a helmet when skiing has reduced head injuries such as fractured skulls, facial lacerations and head lacerations by 50%.

Research shows that in 2003 only 25% of individuals were wearing helmets when hitting the slopes. In 2013, the number had gone up to 70%. The number of head injuries on the slopes has not declined, but the severity of those injuries has improved. Although ski resorts don’t require the use of a helmet, The National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) advocates the use of helmets, especially for children. The NSAA states that helmets may be the difference between a major and minor head injury. This is especially important for developing children.

Wearing a helmet while skiing is vital for childrencThey have less developed motor control and decision-making skills necessary to stay safe. Children are not able to determine distance, speed and when to brake, unlike fully developed adults. This is true for sledding as well. Studies show that head trauma accounts for 34% of injuries from sledding. Children also run the risk of being struck by a skier or snowboarder that is much bigger, heavier and faster, which can result in serious injuries.

Last month an 8-year-old boy died during a ski accident in Connecticut. The young boy attempted to drop into a half pipe that was 3-4 feet tall. The boy’s legs and feet came out from underneath him and he struck his head on the inside of the half pipe. He died of blunt impact injury to the head and his skull was fractured. He was not wearing a helmet.

Consider the following when skiing or riding:

• For every 10,000 people on the slopes, three people will sustain a head injury requiring medical attention.
• 30-50 percent of head injuries can be reduced by helmets. Wearing a helmet may be the difference between life and death.
• Alpine skiers are three times more likely than a snowboarder to be involved in a collision.

Colorado’s “Ski Safety Act,” located at Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-44-101 to -114 provides for skier assumption of inherent dangers, and creates statutory duties for skiers and operators. Skiers, inclusive of sledders and snowboarders, have duties to ski within their abilities, with uphill skiers having a primary duty to avoid collision. Breach of skier duties constitutes negligence.

No distinction is drawn between young children and adults in application of the Act, such that the common law, particularly that young children can not commit negligence nor assume a risk, has been arguably abrogated. In a 2003 statutory amendment, parents were expressly permitted to waive or release a child’s claim in negligence. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-22-107, as added by Laws 2003, Ch. 262, § 1, eff. May 14, 2003 (reversing the conclusion of Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co., 48 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2002) that such a waiver violated public policy and created an unacceptable conflict between parent and child).

In actions arising from skier/skier collisions, such a collision is considered neither an inherent or assumed risk. Id. at § 33-44-109(1). Ski area operators have specific duties to mark trails and provide some other warnings. There is no duty to pad lift towers. Operator breach of a statutory duty constitutes negligence, and is not considered an inherent danger to which liability limitations apply. Id. at §§ 33-44-103(3.5), 33-44-104(2).

Limitations are imposed on damages collectible against ski area operators for downhill skiing accidents, but no such limitation on damages exists for lift accidents. A tramway board is separately formed by Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-34-101 et seq, and tramways are otherwise regulated under the “Passenger Tramway Safety Act,” Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-5-701 et seq. Volunteer ski patrol members are granted civil immunity for acts or omissions in the provision of emergency services or assistance, so long as members act in good faith. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-21-108(3).

Snowmobile use is subject to the duties enumerated in Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-14-101 to -116, the breach of which is handled as negligence per se. The Ski Safety Act was amended in 2004 in several significant respects. Laws 2004, Ch. 341, § 3, eff. May 28, 2004. Skiers continue to assume the “inherent dangers and risks of skiing.”
However, where such dangers and conditions were once only those that were an “integral part” of the sport, the 2004 amendments have modified the language to include all those that are “a part” of the sport. Colo. Rev. Stat Ann. § 33-44-103(3.5), as amended.

Arguably, the omission of the word “integral” could be read broadly to mean without regard to the negligence or lack of care by an operator assumption of practically all hazards. Under Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-44-108(2), as amended, the operator’s duty to post a sign warning of maintenance equipment on an open slope or trail was narrowed to exclude maintenance equipment en route to or from a grooming project. The Amendments eliminate the ski area operator’s prior duty to mark “danger areas”, and includes cliffs and other unmarked dangers as one of the “inherent dangers” of the sport.

Additionally, ski area operator immunities have been expanded to include all ski area property, not just those areas designated for skiing or competition.

What is a ski collision case?

Skiing is not a contact sport and being blindsided by another skier or snowboarder is not an inherent risk under either Colorado or Utah law. Colorado law presumes that the uphill skier or boarder is at fault in a skiing accident, because the overtaking skier has the primary duty to avoid the skier below. In Utah, skiers are required to exercise “reasonable care” to avoid collisions. Usually, this also means the uphill skier must yield to skiers below.

Thus, one of the key issues in any skier/skier case is who was the uphill or overtaking skier. The nature of the injury often gives substantial clues as to how the ski accident occurred, the speed at which the skiers were skiing, and the relative angles to each other.

All skiers are under a general duty to ski cautiously, within their ability and to maintain control and a proper lookout. If a skier fails to ski in control or to maintain a lookout, the skier is negligent and responsible for the injuries and damages that result from the collision

What makes a ski collision case unique?

Many people, including inexperienced lawyers, view a ski collision as just “a car crash on the slopes.” This is an inaccurate characterization for a number reasons, including the dynamics of the accident itself and the laws determining liability. Your best outcome will be achieved by an attorney who not only skis, but also knows the trails and terrain at the Colorado ski areas, and has experience in ski accident reconstruction.

Additionally, the severity of the orthopedic injuries suffered distinguish many ski injuries – long bones and joints are often shattered, requiring extensive, long-term care to reach maximum medical improvement. Studies suggest that over thirty percent of skier collisions result in head injuries. Many of these skiing accident injuries leave some form of permanent impairment. Insurance coverage is typically more complicated than that for motor vehicle accidents as well.

Skiing is not an inexpensive sport to enjoy. Most regular skiers own their homes and thus have homeowner’s insurance coverage which provides coverage for ski accidents. But if the hitter is a young adult, gaining coverage under the parents’ homeowners’ insurance may be a fight depending on the specific facts.

What to expect from a ski collision lawsuit?

Ski safety laws in most states require individuals involved in skier/skier collisions to stop at the scene, render aid and to give their name, address, and identification. Yet, we receive numerous calls each year from skiers who were injured by another’s reckless skiing and that injured skier is unable to identify or name the reckless skier involved. Do not rely on ski patrol or ski area operators to get this information for you because in most cases, they are under no legal duty to obtain the information.

Generally, ski patrol will compile a relatively comprehensive report concerning the nature, location, and causes of a skier/skier collision. But you may not be provided a complete copy of the accident file without legal representation, many ski area operators will only produce the complete file in response to a subpoena from an attorney.

Medical expenses can easily run into six-figures. The nature of the injuries suffered in a ski collision often means expensive accommodations are needed over a long-term period. Other expenses which arise include future medical expenses, often coupled with a loss of income if the victim was previously employed. Usually the worst parts of the injury are the pain, the difficulty during recovery, and sometimes even a permanent impairment. The injured victim may seek compensation from the liable party for all of these expenses