Martha and her family went to the defendant’s ski area one busy day, intending only to enjoy the hospitality of the lodge and watch the skiers in action. In an apparent attempt to view the skiing from a closer vantage point, Martha left the lodge to go to the foot of the ski slopes, some of which came to within 10 feet of the door she used.
As Martha stepped out of the door, she noticed that “the complete area was covered with ice.” Undeterred, she proceeded toward the slopes, but before she got more than a few steps from the door she slipped and fell.
Suing the area operator, Martha claimed he was negligent in failing to keep the walkway free of ice and snow and should therefore pay for her injuries. Upon the trial, Martha obtained a judgement against the operator. On appeal, however, this was reversed.
The appeals court noted that the area between the door of the lodge used by Martha and the beginning of the ski slopes “could not reasonably be kept free from snow and ice” in view of its constant use by skiers coming into the lodge. “It was a facility maintained in close connection with a hazardous sport. The proof is that skiers coming back to the lodge knocked snow from their skiis, and that while reasonable efforts to keep the area near the door which gave access to the slopes free from ice or snow were made, it was not possible to do this effectively while the slopes were in active use.”
Moreover, noted the Court, while the area operator “was bound to exercise reasonable care against injury . . . it would be unreasonable to require of it that the approaches to ski slopes be prevented from being slippery so that non-skiing visitors going out to look would not find it slippery and would not fall.”
Additionally, the Court declared that Martha, herself had to take some “responsibility . . . when she ventured out in this area which might reasonably be expected to be slippery.” Indeed, her own testimony disclosed that she saw the area was covered with ice when she stepped out.
On a further appeal by Martha, the view of the first appeals court was unanimously affirmed, and Martha recovered nothing.
Columnist Stephen Fine is a partner in the New York law firm Lubell, Lubbell, Fine & Schaap.
