ClickCease
Free consultations · Se habla espanol
Colorado Springs, Colorado. CGH Injury Lawyers represents ski accident victims from Colorado Springs from our Denver office.
Colorado Springs, Colorado

Colorado Springs Ski Accident Lawyers for Injuries a Long Way From Home

Skiers from the Springs do not take the same road to the snow as the rest of the Front Range. The drive is longer, it often avoids I-70 entirely, and by the time a serious injury reaches a hospital the medical record has already crossed two or three counties. Colorado's Ski Safety Act still decides the claim. We bring those claims from our Denver office at 2701 Lawrence St., and we charge no fee unless we win.

No fee unless we win
Call (303) 209-9395 Get my free ski accident case review

It's More Than Money.

Get my free ski accident case review

100% confidential. No fee unless we win.

Our Denver Office CGH Injury Lawyers 2701 Lawrence St., Suite 201 Denver, CO 80205 (303) 209-9395 Se habla espanol
5-star rated on Google ABOTA trial advocate on the team Trial lawyers, not a settlement mill 8 attorneys, bilingual EN / ES
  • Colorado has a statute written specifically for ski injuries, and it decides in advance which ones can be pursued.
  • The resort's release is a contract, and contract law limits how far it reaches.
  • A collision caused by another skier is treated differently from an injury caused by the mountain itself.
  • Two years is the deadline on both tracks, drawn from two different statutes.
  • Nothing is charged for the consultation, and the fee comes only out of a recovery.
The law on the mountain

The Ski Safety Act and what it settles before the argument starts

Colorado wrote a statute for this sport, which is unusual, and the statute does something more unusual still: it decides a large share of these disputes before anyone reaches a courtroom. The Ski Safety Act of 1979, C.R.S. 33-44-101 and following, sets out the operator's obligations, the skier's obligations, and a defined category of hazards that produce no claim against anyone.

That defined category is the one to understand. C.R.S. 33-44-103 lists the inherent dangers and risks of skiing, and the list is not short. It takes in weather that changes, snow in every state from powder to hard pack to slush to machine-made, bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain and trees, variation in steepness whether natural or produced by slope design or grooming, and impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences, hydrants, water pipes, and comparable structures. An injury sourced to that list is generally an injury the law leaves where it fell.

The same definition then draws its own boundary. Inherent dangers and risks of skiing expressly do not include the negligence of a ski area operator described at C.R.S. 33-44-104(2), and the section states that nothing in it limits an operator's liability for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts. Those two carve-outs are the reason ski cases exist at all.

Worth stating plainly, since paraphrases of this Act circulate freely and inaccurately: the statute is built on the term "ski area" and on sliding downhill or jumping on snow or ice. It draws no distinction between disciplines of skiing, and it imposes no helmet obligation on anyone, of any age.

The critical distinction

The same injury, classified two ways

Ask about trauma care in this city and you get a small lesson in how much a label depends on who is applying it. Penrose Hospital carries a Level II trauma designation from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and a Level I verification from the American College of Surgeons. Same hospital, same building, two authorities, two answers.

Ski injury claims turn on a classification problem of exactly that shape. One event, and two available descriptions of it.

Classified as an inherent danger (no recovery)

  • Snow and surface conditions in any form
  • Weather, and the visibility it produces
  • Natural ground features: bare spots, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, and trees
  • Variation in steepness or terrain, however it arose
  • Impact with a lift tower, sign, post, fence, hydrant, or similar structure

Classified as operator negligence (recovery possible)

  • Lift maintenance and operation failures, from mis-loading to abrupt stops to unloading injuries
  • Required signage that was absent, incorrect, or obscured
  • Snowmaking or grooming equipment run on open terrain without the warnings the Act requires
  • Man-made hazards left unmarked or unpadded within a skiing area
  • Negligence by resort employees, instructors, or ski patrol

Which description attaches is a factual question, and it frequently changes once records are produced. A collision with a lift tower belongs in the first list, until the maintenance file shows the padding that was supposed to be on that tower was not. The classification is worth contesting rather than accepting.

Skier duties and the downhill rule

When the person who hurt you was another skier

Against another skier, the Act is not an obstacle. C.R.S. 33-44-109(1) states that notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the risk of a skier-skier collision is neither an inherent risk nor a risk assumed by a skier in an action by one skier against another. The defense a resort would raise is unavailable to an individual.

  1. Speed, course, and position

    A skier must control speed and course and keep a proper lookout. The statute then fixes the primary duty on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with anyone or anything below them. Who was above whom is often the whole dispute.

  2. Posted information and closures

    Posted information and warnings must be heeded, and a run posted as closed must not be skied. The Act presumes a skier saw and understood information posted near base area lifts, on the tramways, and on the runs being skied.

  3. Merging and starting

    Before beginning to ski from a stationary position, or entering a run from the side, the duty is to avoid skiers already moving on that run.

  4. Runaway equipment

    Every ski or snowboard must be fitted with a strap or other device capable of stopping it if it detaches. Cross country skis are exempt from that requirement.

  5. Impairment, and leaving the scene

    Using a lift or a run while impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance is prohibited. So is leaving the vicinity of a collision in which someone was injured without first giving your name and current address to a resort employee or a member of the patrol, unless you leave to secure aid and provide the details afterwards.

  6. The penalties, as the statute currently reads

    This subsection was amended and the outdated version is still reproduced widely, so it is worth being precise. Under C.R.S. 33-44-109(12)(a), violating the closed-slope provision, the impairment provision, or the provision on knowingly entering closed adjoining lands is a civil infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000. Under C.R.S. 33-44-109(12)(b), leaving the scene of an injury collision is a petty offense, which is a different classification and is not part of the $1,000 group.

  7. Apportioning fault

    Colorado then divides responsibility. C.R.S. 13-21-111 allows recovery only where the claimant's negligence was not as great as that of the party sued, and reduces any award by the claimant's share. At an even split there is nothing left to recover, which is why the earliest version of the story is worth testing.

The truth about waivers

The release you signed, and how far it actually reaches

Every pass, ticket, and rental agreement carries release language, and it is drafted to read like the end of the conversation. It usually is not.

A release in Colorado is a contract and is held to contract standards. The language must be clear and unambiguous, and it governs only the conduct it plainly identifies. A clause addressed to ordinary negligence addresses ordinary negligence, and reaches no further than that.

Its limits are where these cases live. A release does not excuse willful and wanton conduct, recklessness, or gross negligence. Where a resort left a hazard it knew about, skipped an inspection it owed, or kept equipment in service that it understood to be defective, the document stops doing the work the resort wants it to do.

Parents should know that children are handled separately. C.R.S. 13-22-107(3) allows a parent to release or waive a child's prospective negligence claim on the child's behalf. Subsection (4) then makes clear that nothing in the section permits a parent to waive a child's claim for a willful and wanton act or omission, a reckless act or omission, or a grossly negligent act or omission.

Do not decide this alone. Bring the paperwork, and it gets read against the facts.

Local Knowledge

A two-county district, Level I care at home, and a route west that is not I-70

Courthouse

The 4th Judicial District

El Paso County sits in the 4th Judicial District, which it shares with Teller County. District court business is handled at the El Paso County Judicial Building, 270 S. Tejon St., Colorado Springs, CO 80903. For a ski claim, that building is often not the destination. Venue in these cases tends to follow the resort and the location of the injury, so a crash at a mountain in Chaffee, Summit, Eagle, or Grand county is generally litigated in that county. Living and working in Colorado Springs does not tie the claim to El Paso County, and it places no limit on who can represent you.

Trauma Care

Trauma care in the city

Acute care is the one part of this that does not require leaving town. UCHealth Memorial Hospital Central, at 1400 E. Boulder St., holds the state's Level I trauma designation and is the only Level I center in southern Colorado. Penrose Hospital, at 2222 N. Nevada Ave., holds a Level II designation from the state health department alongside a Level I verification from the American College of Surgeons. Having that care at home does not mean the record stays here. A skier hurt at a resort is stabilized near the mountain, often at a small facility, sometimes transported by air, and then treated closer to home afterwards. The chart splits across a resort clinic, a transporting service, a mountain hospital, and a hospital in this city. Gathering all of it, in sequence, is the groundwork these claims are built on.

The Corridor

The drive west

The route to the snow from Colorado Springs is its own subject. US-24 runs west out of town through Woodland Park, which is in Teller County, the other half of this judicial district, and carries on toward the South Park side of the divide. US-50 heads west by way of Cañon City to Salida, and Monarch Mountain sits at the top of Monarch Pass on US-50, roughly 120 miles west of the city and about 20 miles beyond Salida, at a pass elevation of 11,312 feet. The alternative is north on I-25 to Denver and then west on I-70 with everyone else. The legal relevance is modest and the evidentiary relevance is not. These are long winter drives, and the question that follows a same-day return is always when the symptoms actually began.

Compensation

What an injured Colorado Springs skier may be able to recover

Once negligence is established, Colorado sorts the harm into losses with a paper trail and losses without one.

Economic damages

  • Getting off the mountain, air ambulance included where it was required
  • Emergency care, surgery, and specialist treatment through discharge
  • Earnings lost during recovery and earning capacity lost afterwards
  • Physical and occupational rehabilitation
  • Care still to come, including a life care plan where the injury warrants one
  • Out-of-pocket costs attributable to the injury

Non-economic damages

  • Pain and suffering following orthopedic, spinal, or head trauma
  • Permanent impairment or loss of physical function
  • Loss of enjoyment of life, the sport included
  • In a death case, funeral expenses and loss of companionship

The cap in C.R.S. 33-44-113, and its four qualifications

Damages recoverable from a ski area operator are limited by statute. C.R.S. 33-44-113 caps the total at one million dollars present value, limits any derivative claim by another claimant to two hundred fifty thousand dollars, and limits non-economic loss to two hundred fifty thousand dollars. Four qualifications live in the same section.

  • The statute excludes injuries occurring to a passenger while riding a passenger tramway from the cap.
  • The cap applies to claims against an operator. It does not apply to a claim brought against the skier who caused the collision.
  • A court may award beyond the ceiling on good cause shown, limited to excess future lost earnings or excess future medical and health care costs, and only where the limitation would be unfair.
  • The limits and their exceptions are not disclosed to the jury.
Deadlines and fault

Two years, and the date the two years start

The deadline is two years whichever way the claim runs. The statute supplying it is not the same, and neither is the analysis.

Against a ski area operator or its employees, for damages caused by the maintenance, supervision, or operation of a passenger tramway or a ski area, C.R.S. 33-44-111 controls and requires the action to be brought within two years after the claim for relief arises. Against another skier, that provision has no application. The claim falls under C.R.S. 13-80-102(1)(a), the general two-year limitation for tort actions.

The start date is governed separately. C.R.S. 13-80-108(1) provides that a cause of action for personal injury accrues on the date both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence. That rule exists for injuries that do not announce themselves, which describes a fair share of head and spine injuries from a fall.

Fault is assessed on its own terms. C.R.S. 13-21-111 preserves recovery only while the claimant's negligence remains less than that of the party sued, with any award reduced in proportion. Half is the end of it. Insurers know the threshold, and the account of the collision that pushes a claimant over it tends to be assembled quickly.

Why CGH

Why injured Colorado Springs skiers choose CGH Injury Lawyers

Trial-Ready

Built for trial.

A file prepared for a courtroom is valued differently from one that is not.

The Statute

Ski claims run on their own rules.

Inherent risk, statutory duties, the operator damages cap, and release language behave nothing like a standard negligence case.

Fast Evidence Action

Evidence has a shelf life.

Lift maintenance logs, grooming records, incident reports, patrol notes, and the state of signage change or disappear. Preservation demands go out early.

No Win, No Fee

No fee unless we win.

The consultation costs nothing and the fee comes from a recovery.

Local Reach

Distance is our problem, not yours.

We work with clients across the state, we handle the case from Denver, and we travel when travelling is difficult.

How it works

How we handle a Colorado Springs ski accident case

  1. Free consultation

    Tell us what happened, and get a straight answer about whether there is a claim, including when there is not.

  2. Preservation

    Written demands go to the resort for lift logs, grooming records, incident reports, and video before retention windows close.

  3. Investigation

    Witnesses are traced, patrol and clinic records obtained, and where the mechanism of injury is disputed, an accident reconstruction expert is engaged.

  4. Medical picture

    The complete record is assembled across every facility involved, and in serious cases treating physicians and life care planners set out what recovery will require.

  5. Demand and negotiation

    The claim is presented with evidence behind it.

  6. Litigation where needed

    Where the offer does not match the harm, suit is filed in the correct venue and the case is prepared for trial.

5-star rated on Google

I wish I could leave more than 5 stars!

Grace Macaluso, 5-star Google review
Questions

Colorado Springs ski accident, frequently asked questions

Will my case be filed in El Paso County?

Often not. El Paso County is in the 4th Judicial District with Teller County, and district matters are heard at 270 S. Tejon St. A ski injury claim, though, is usually brought where the resort and the injury are, which for most Springs skiers means a mountain county. That does not mean you have to run the case from there.

I was hurt at a resort hours away. Does that change anything?

It changes logistics rather than rights. The claim is governed by the same Colorado statutes wherever the resort sits. What distance does affect is the medical record, which tends to be spread across a resort clinic, a transporting service, and hospitals in more than one county.

Does the waiver on my pass end my claim?

Not by itself. A release is read as a contract and covers only what it clearly states. It cannot reach willful and wanton conduct, recklessness, or gross negligence, and C.R.S. 13-22-107(4) bars a parent from waiving a child's claim for conduct in those categories.

Another skier hit me. Is that an assumed risk?

No. C.R.S. 33-44-109(1) says a skier-skier collision is neither an inherent risk nor a risk assumed in an action by one skier against another, and the statute assigns the primary duty to avoid a collision to the skier who is downhill.

How long do I have to bring a claim?

Two years on either track. Against a ski area operator or its employees the deadline comes from C.R.S. 33-44-111; against another skier it comes from C.R.S. 13-80-102(1)(a). The clock generally starts when both the injury and its cause were known or reasonably should have been known.

Is my recovery limited?

Against a ski area operator it is. C.R.S. 33-44-113 sets one million dollars present value in total, with two hundred fifty thousand dollars on derivative claims and on non-economic loss. Passenger tramway injuries are excluded, the cap does not apply to a claim against another skier, and a court may exceed it on good cause shown for excess future earnings or future medical costs.

Does Colorado require a helmet?

The Ski Safety Act contains no helmet requirement at any age. Wearing one is sensible, and it is not what determines whether a claim exists.

What if I was partly at fault?

Recovery survives while your share of the negligence stays below the other party's, with the award reduced accordingly. At half or more, C.R.S. 13-21-111 ends it, which is why the initial account of fault is worth challenging.

What does this cost?

Nothing up front. Consultations are free and the fee is taken only from a recovery.

Keep Reading

Related pages

Colorado Springs

Practice Area

Firm

Get Help

It's More Than Money.

You were hurt on the mountain. We handle everything else.

Call (303) 209-9395 or request a free case review. No fee unless we win.

Tell us what happened

100% confidential. No fee unless we win.

Call (303) 209-9395 Get my free ski accident case review

Prefer to read first? See how Colorado's Ski Safety Act works.

CGH Injury Lawyers · 2701 Lawrence St., Suite 201, Denver, CO 80205

Attorney Advertising. CGH Injury Lawyers.