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

Durango Ski Accident Lawyers, Where the Mountain Is the Neighbor

Durango does not commute to the snow. Purgatory is 25 miles up US-550 in this same county, and Silverton Mountain sits in San Juan County, which shares this judicial district. The injury, the hospital, and the courthouse can all fall inside the 6th. Serious trauma still leaves, because Mercy Hospital on Three Springs Boulevard is designated Level III. We handle Colorado Ski Safety Act 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 sorts ski injuries under a statute of their own before ordinary negligence is reached.
  • What happens on a lift is governed differently from what happens on the snow, damages included.
  • The release you signed is a contract, and it does not cover reckless or grossly negligent conduct.
  • Both routes run 2 years, and the statute providing it depends on who you are suing.
  • The consultation is free, and our fee comes only from a recovery.
The law on the mountain

What the Colorado Ski Safety Act does to a ski injury claim

Take an ordinary injury to a lawyer and the first thing anyone asks is whether somebody failed to be careful. Take a ski injury and there is a question in front of that one, because Colorado has already legislated on the subject. The Ski Safety Act of 1979, C.R.S. 33-44-101 and following, lays out the duties a resort carries, the duties a skier carries, and a defined group of hazards that support no claim against anyone.

That defined group appears at C.R.S. 33-44-103, and the drafting is expansive. It covers changing weather. It covers snow conditions across the whole range, ice, hard pack, powder, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow. It covers bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees. It covers variation in steepness, whether the mountain produced it or slope design, snowmaking, and grooming did. It covers impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences, hydrants, water pipes, and other structures somebody built. An injury inside that group belongs to the skier.

Then the same definition sets 2 limits on itself, and those limits are where claims come from. The first: inherent dangers and risks of skiing do not include the negligence of a ski area operator as described at C.R.S. 33-44-104(2). The second: nothing in the section limits an operator's liability for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.

A correction worth making before anything else, because unreliable summaries of this Act are easy to find. The statute is built on the term "ski area" and on sliding downhill or jumping on snow or ice. It does not categorize resorts by type of skiing, and it sets no helmet requirement for any skier at any age.

The critical distinction

The one question that decides most of the case

Almost everything that matters follows from a single early determination. Here is the split the statute draws.

Inherent dangers (no recovery)

  • Snow and ice in every condition, plus the ground underneath where cover is thin
  • Weather, and what it does to what you can see
  • The mountain's own features: rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, forest growth, and trees
  • Pitch that changes, by nature or through slope design, snowmaking, or grooming
  • Contact with a lift tower, sign, post, fence, hydrant, or water pipe sitting where it always sits

Operator negligence (recovery possible)

  • Lift failures, bad loads, abrupt stops, drops, and injuries while unloading
  • Required signage that was absent, wrong, or unreadable
  • Grooming or snowmaking machinery run on an open trail without the warning the Act requires
  • Man-made obstacles left unpadded or unmarked in a skiing area
  • Careless conduct by resort employees, instructors, or patrollers

Treat the first classification as provisional. A tower strike falls into the first group on its face and shifts into the second if the padding that belonged on that tower was not there. That is worth asking about before anybody accepts a conclusion.

Skier duties and the downhill rule

Claims against another skier under C.R.S. 33-44-109

Where another skier caused the injury, the statute works in the injured person's favor. C.R.S. 33-44-109(1) provides that 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 that defeats most claims against a resort has been closed off here by the legislature's own words.

  1. Speed, course, and lookout

    Each skier has a duty to keep control of speed and course at all times and to maintain a proper lookout for others. The statute then puts the primary duty on the person skiing downhill, the skier coming from above, who must avoid colliding with any person or object below them. Reconstructing who held which position is normally the center of the dispute.

  2. Signs and closed trails

    Posted information and warnings have to be heeded, and a trail posted as closed cannot be skied. A skier is presumed to have seen and understood what was posted near base area lifts, on the tramways, and on the trails being skied.

  3. Starting and joining

    Beginning to ski from a stationary position, or entering a trail from the side, brings a duty to avoid the skiers already coming down.

  4. Devices for loose equipment

    Each ski or board must have a strap or other device capable of stopping it if it detaches. Cross country skis are excluded from that requirement.

  5. Impairment, and leaving a collision

    Moving uphill on a lift or using a trail while impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance is prohibited, as is leaving the vicinity of an injury collision without giving your name and current address to a resort employee or patroller. The statute allows a departure to secure aid, provided the information follows.

  6. What the current penalties actually say

    This subsection was rewritten and older reproductions still print the previous wording, so the detail deserves care. C.R.S. 33-44-109(12)(a) makes it a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, to violate the closed-trail provision, the impairment provision, or the provision on knowingly entering closed adjoining lands. C.R.S. 33-44-109(12)(b) makes leaving the scene of an injury collision a petty offense, a separate classification that sits outside that $1,000 group.

  7. Comparative fault

    Colorado then divides responsibility. C.R.S. 13-21-111 allows a claimant to recover only where their negligence was not as great as the negligence of the party sued, and reduces the award by the claimant's share. Once that share reaches half, the claim is finished. That is the arithmetic behind an insurer's interest in settling the story early.

The truth about waivers

How much of a claim the release actually takes

Every pass, ticket, and rental form in Colorado carries release language, and it is written to make an injured person stop before they start. It usually does less than it looks like it does.

Colorado reads a release as a contract, which means contract law applies. The wording has to be clear and unambiguous, and it operates only on the conduct it names. A clause aimed at ordinary negligence covers ordinary negligence and goes no further.

The limits are what matter. Willful and wanton conduct, recklessness, and gross negligence sit outside any release. Where a resort knew about a hazard and left it, skipped an inspection it was obliged to perform, or kept equipment in service knowing it was defective, the document does not do the work the resort is relying on it to do.

Children are handled by a separate rule. C.R.S. 13-22-107(3) permits a parent to release or waive a child's prospective negligence claim on the child's behalf, and subsection (4) provides 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.

Reading the form alone and concluding there is nothing to pursue is the common mistake. Bring it in, and it gets read against what happened.

Local Knowledge

A judicial district with ski areas inside it, and trauma care that still points outward

Courthouse

The 6th Judicial District covers the mountains you ski

Durango is the seat of La Plata County, and La Plata forms the 6th Judicial District together with Archuleta County and San Juan County. District matters here are handled at the La Plata County Courthouse, 1060 E. Second Ave., Suite 106, Durango, CO 81301. What matters for a ski case is what else is inside that district. Purgatory Resort is 25 miles north of Durango on US-550, in La Plata County. Silverton Mountain sits in San Juan County, roughly 6 miles from Silverton. So for a Durango skier, the accident, the treating hospital, and the courthouse can all fall inside the same judicial district. A skier who lives on the Front Range and drives to Summit or Eagle county is typically injured well outside their home district, and the claim is litigated where the crash happened. Here the geography can line up instead. Not always, though. Venue in these cases generally follows the resort and the place the injury happened. Ski at Wolf Creek, reached over US-160 from Pagosa Springs, and the resort itself is outside this district even though Archuleta County is inside it. Drive north to Telluride or over to the Front Range and the answer changes again. The location of the injury does more to determine where a case belongs than the location of the injured person.

Trauma Care

The care escalates by leaving

Mercy Hospital, 1010 Three Springs Blvd., is designated a Level III trauma center, and it is generally where a serious ski injury in this area is taken first. A Level III facility is built to evaluate, stabilize, and move a patient onward when the injury calls for a higher level of care. Within Colorado the nearest higher designation is the Level II at Intermountain Health St. Mary's Regional Hospital in Grand Junction, and the state's Level I centers are further away again, on the other side of the mountains. For a case, that means the medical record is a chain and not a single chart. A ski patrol report, a clinic at the resort, an ambulance or a flight, Mercy, then possibly a transfer, then whatever follow-up care runs for months afterward. Each institution keeps its own records on its own schedule and releases them separately. Putting the sequence back together is ordinary work, and it is how the seriousness of an injury actually gets demonstrated.

The Corridor

A destination town, which changes who is involved

Durango draws skiers who live somewhere else, and that shows up in these cases. An injured visitor and an injured resident are in much the same position under Colorado law, because the law that governs is the law of the place the injury happened, and the claim generally belongs where the crash occurred. What changes is practical: an out-of-state skier goes home, treats with doctors in another state, and ends up with a record split across jurisdictions while the claim stays here. Handling that is routine, and it is easier when someone starts collecting from both ends early. The same fact cuts the other way as well. A Durango resident hit by a visitor is dealing with a defendant who has left the state, which affects service, insurance, and scheduling. Both situations come up in a town that draws visitors, and both are workable.

Compensation

What an injured Durango skier may be able to recover

Once negligence is established, Colorado separates the losses that come with documentation from those that do not.

Economic damages

  • Evacuation from the mountain, air transport included where it was necessary
  • Emergency treatment, surgery, and specialist care through discharge
  • Income lost during recovery, and earning capacity lost afterward
  • Rehabilitation, physical and occupational
  • Care still to come, including a life care plan where the injury warrants one
  • Out-of-pocket costs traceable to the injury

Non-economic damages

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

The operator cap, and the lift exception inside it

What a ski area operator can be made to pay is limited by statute. C.R.S. 33-44-113 sets a total ceiling of $1,000,000 present value, caps any derivative claim by another claimant at $250,000, and caps non-economic loss at $250,000. Four features of the section change how it lands.

  • Injuries occurring to a passenger while riding a passenger tramway are excluded from the cap by the statute's own terms, which is why a chairlift case is analyzed separately from a case on the snow.
  • The cap governs claims against an operator only. A claim against the skier who caused the collision is not subject to it.
  • A court may award above the ceiling on good cause shown, confined to excess future lost earnings or excess future medical and health care costs, and only where applying the limit would be unfair.
  • The limits and the exceptions to them are not disclosed to the jury.
Deadlines and fault

Two years, from whichever statute fits the defendant

The period is 2 years on both routes. Which statute delivers it turns on who the defendant is.

Against a ski area operator or its employees, where the damages were caused by the maintenance, supervision, or operation of a passenger tramway or a ski area, C.R.S. 33-44-111 governs and requires the action to be brought within 2 years after the claim for relief arises. Against another skier, that section does not apply, because its text is addressed to operators. The limitation there comes from C.R.S. 13-80-102(1)(a), the general 2-year period for tort actions.

When the period opens is its own question. C.R.S. 13-80-108(1) provides that a cause of action accrues on the date both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known through reasonable diligence. In most ski cases that is the day of the crash. Injuries that develop quietly, which describes much head and spine trauma from a fall, are the reason the rule is drafted that way. Waiting to see how far the damage goes does not add time.

Fault runs on a separate track. C.R.S. 13-21-111 permits recovery while the claimant's negligence stays below that of the party sued, reducing the award in proportion to the claimant's share, and ends recovery at an even split. Insurers are well acquainted with that threshold, and the account of a collision that keeps a claimant clear of it is built from witnesses and records in the first weeks.

Why CGH

Why injured Durango skiers choose CGH Injury Lawyers

Trial-Ready

Built for trial.

A file that is plainly ready 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 cap, and release language do not behave like ordinary negligence.

Fast Evidence Action

Proof expires.

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

No Win, No Fee

No fee unless we win.

Nothing is owed for the consultation, and our fee comes from a recovery. The fee agreement sets out how case costs are handled before you sign.

Local Reach

Distance is not an obstacle.

Durango is a long way from Denver, and this work is done by phone, video, and travel when travel is what a case needs.

How it works

How we handle a Durango ski accident case

  1. Free consultation

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

  2. Preservation

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

  3. Investigation

    Witnesses are located, patrol and clinic records obtained, and where the mechanism of injury is contested, an accident reconstruction expert is brought in.

  4. Medical picture

    Records are collected from every facility in the chain, including out-of-state treatment, and in serious cases treating physicians and life care planners establish what recovery requires.

  5. Demand and negotiation

    The claim goes out backed by evidence.

  6. Litigation where needed

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

5-star rated on Google

I wish I could leave more than 5 stars!

Grace Macaluso, 5-star Google review
Questions

Durango ski accident, frequently asked questions

Which judicial district is Durango in?

The 6th, which covers La Plata County, Archuleta County, and San Juan County. District matters are handled at the La Plata County Courthouse, 1060 E. Second Ave., Suite 106, in Durango.

I was hurt at Purgatory. Where would the case be filed?

Venue generally follows the resort and the site of the injury, and Purgatory is in La Plata County, so a claim from there commonly stays in this district. A crash at a resort in another county is usually litigated in that county.

I live out of state and got hurt skiing here. Can I still bring a claim?

Where you live does not by itself decide the question. An injury that happened in Colorado is generally governed by Colorado law and the claim generally belongs where the injury occurred. Treating at home afterward is common and manageable; those records simply have to be gathered from the out-of-state providers as well.

Mercy is a Level III. What happens if my injury is worse than that?

A Level III center is built to evaluate, stabilize, and transfer when a patient needs a higher level of care, so a serious head or spinal injury may be moved on. From a case standpoint that produces records at more than one facility, which is normal and is part of what gets assembled.

Does the release on my pass end my claim?

Not on its own. Colorado reads a release as a contract, so it reaches only the conduct it clearly describes. It cannot cover willful and wanton conduct, recklessness, or gross negligence, and under C.R.S. 13-22-107(4) a parent cannot waive a child's claim for conduct in those categories.

Another skier hit me. Is that just part of the sport?

Not in a claim between skiers. C.R.S. 33-44-109(1) provides that a skier-skier collision is neither an inherent risk nor a risk assumed in an action by one skier against another, and the statute places the primary duty to avoid the collision on the person skiing downhill, the skier who is above.

I was hurt on a chairlift. Is that treated differently?

It can be. C.R.S. 33-44-103 states that nothing in the inherent-risk definition limits an operator's liability for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts, and C.R.S. 33-44-113 excludes injuries occurring to a passenger while riding a passenger tramway from the damages cap.

How long do I have?

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

Is there a cap on what I can recover?

Against a ski area operator, yes. C.R.S. 33-44-113 sets $1,000,000 present value overall, with $250,000 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.

Do I have to wear a helmet in Colorado?

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

What if I was partly at fault?

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

What will this cost me?

Nothing to start. The consultation is free, and the fee is taken only from a recovery. How case costs are handled is set out in the fee agreement before you sign.

Keep Reading

Related pages

Durango

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.