Christine and a boyfriend decided to go tobogganing at Snow Valley, Calif. The land was owned by the U.S. government, but permits were issued authorizing Snow Valley to construct and maintain “a Winter sports resort.” In exchange, the government received a promise by Snow Valley to indemnify the government in the event it should be held liable for injuries occurring on its land.
Snow Valley had fenced off a hillside for tobogganing. While Christine and her friend were descending on their toboggan, she was thrown and seriously injured when the sled bounced on a hump in the snow. Christine sued the government, claiming that it, as the landowner, was negligent in failing to warn her of possible danger.
In turn, the government sued Snow Valley, claiming that it had the primary responsibility and that if the government was liable to Christine, Snow Valley was liable to it under the indemnity agreement for the damages it would be forced to pay.
The court held* that:
There was no evidence that the irregularity resulted from the presence of any object or condition which might reasonably be said to be foreign to a recreational snow-slide facility. To the contrary, there was evidence to the effect that the presence of humps and mounds of snow, not only are common, but also are inevitable in areas of toboggan traffic.
The court also said this was one of the dangers inherent in the sport in which Christine had assumed the risk of injury.
Christine had testified that prior to entering the slide area she and her boyfriend had observed others fall from their toboggans. “I didn’t know whether I should try it . . . I don’t know what I was afraid of . . .”
The court’s reaction was to declare that:
There is no duty to communicate a warning of danger to one to whom the danger is obvious . . . While she was aware of the risk that she might fall from the toboggan, she was not fearful that she might bounce from it. This subjective distinction is too fine to support her claim of inadequate knowledge of all normal hazards incident to the toboggan ride.
The government also lost its suit against the Snow Valley operator. The court held that the operator, under the indemnity agreement, was liable to the government only if the government were liable to Christine. Because the government had been held not liable to her, there could obviously be no judgment against the operator.
*Aff’d, Van Der Veen v. United States, 349 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1969).
