Court Of Appeals Holds Ski Area Safety Act Does Not Preempt Gross Negligence Claims
Swanson v Bittersweet Ski Resort, Inc
Opinion Published: January 9, 2025 (Patel, Rick, Feeney)
COA Docket No. 366258
Allegan County Circuit Court
Holding: The Ski Area Safety Act (SASA) does not categorically preempt gross negligence claims. Further, Michigan’s public policy is violated by releases that attempt to contract against liability for gross negligence.
Facts: Robert Scott Swanson was working as a volunteer ski patroller at Bittersweet Ski Resort when he boarded a ski lift while carrying a toboggan that needed to be transported to the top of the hill. The lift operator, Christina Regalado, directed him to approach the chair at an angle and took the toboggan from him, pulling it in front of the moving chair at an angle not in line with the chair's direction of travel. She then shifted it over the top of Robert's right ski while the lift was in motion, forcing Robert to grab and hook the heavy toboggan (70-80 pounds) while the lift was moving.
As the lift rose into the air, Robert's ski remained trapped by the toboggan. His right ski snagged on an unidentified object (possibly snow or ice), causing his leg to twist under the toboggan. Robert began yelling for Christina to stop the lift. He flipped off the back of the chair and hung on with his right arm. Christina testified she had approximately seven seconds to load each chair and had already moved on to loading the next chair. She claimed Robert gave her a thumbs up indicating he was fine before the lift left the platform. Robert lost his grip and fell approximately 20 feet to the ground, sustaining injuries that required ambulance transport to a hospital.
Robert and his wife Bonnie filed suit alleging violations of the Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), negligence, premises liability, gross negligence, and loss of consortium. Robert had signed a release of liability form as a volunteer ski patroller. The trial court granted summary disposition of the complaint, concluding that the claims were barred under the SASA and the release.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order, concluding that Robert was not a “skier” as defined in the SASA and further found ambiguity in the release since it did not indicate that it was applicable to Robert in his role as a volunteer ski patroller. In lieu of granting lease to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the portion of the Court of Appeals decision which found the release to be ambiguous and directed the Court of Appeals to consider on remand, Swanson’s argument that the release violated public policy.
Key Appellate Rulings:
On remand, the Court of Appeals held that while parties may contract against liability for ordinary negligence, they cannot contract against liability for gross negligence as a matter of public policy. “Preventing parties from contracting against liability for gross negligence clearly aligns with the broader public policy goal of ensuring accountability for conduct that demonstrates an egregious lack of concern for the safety of others.”
On remand, the Court of Appeals further examined the scope of the SASA and whether it applied to claims of gross negligence. The Court noted that the SASA limits ski area operator liability only with respect to injuries arising from "obvious and necessary" dangers inherent to skiing, but does not grant total immunity from all liability.
SASA does not categorically preempt gross negligence claims. The SASA only limits liability to risks inherent to the sport of skiing, it does not completely insulate ski resorts from liability for grossly negligent conduct demonstrating a clear lack of concern for skier safety.
