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

Englewood Ski Accident Lawyers, Where the Serious Injuries Arrive

Most Front Range towns send skiers west. Englewood receives them coming back. HCA HealthONE Swedish on East Hampden Avenue is a Level I trauma center, and a skier hurt badly enough in the mountains can be flown here from a resort two counties away. That puts an Englewood address at the receiving end of serious mountain injuries that began a long way from here. 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 governs ski injuries by a statute written for them, which is applied before ordinary negligence.
  • An injury on a lift and an injury on the snow follow different rules, damages included.
  • The release on your pass is a contract, and it does not reach reckless or grossly negligent conduct.
  • Each deadline is 2 years, and the statute that supplies it turns on the defendant.
  • 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

Bring a car crash to a lawyer and the analysis begins with carelessness. Bring a ski injury and something sits in front of that, because Colorado legislated on this activity directly. The Ski Safety Act of 1979, C.R.S. 33-44-101 and following, sets out what a resort must do, what a skier must do, and which hazards support no claim against anyone.

The hazards are defined at C.R.S. 33-44-103, and the definition is long by design. Changing weather is in it. So is snow in all of its conditions, ice, hard pack, powder, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow. So are bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees. So is variation in steepness, whether it came from the mountain or from slope design, snowmaking, and grooming. So is impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences, hydrants, water pipes, and other built structures. An injury that falls inside that definition belongs to the skier who suffered it.

The definition then limits itself twice, and those 2 limits are where claims are found. Inherent dangers and risks of skiing do not include the negligence of a ski area operator as set out at C.R.S. 33-44-104(2). And nothing in the section limits an operator's liability for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.

A note on accuracy before going further, since unreliable versions of this Act are easy to come across. The statute turns on the term "ski area" and on sliding downhill or jumping on snow or ice. It does not divide resorts by type of skiing, and it contains no helmet requirement for a skier of any age.

The critical distinction

The one question that decides most of the case

One determination made early governs most of what follows. The statute splits the field this way.

Inherent dangers (no recovery)

  • Snow and ice in all conditions, and the surface beneath them where cover is thin
  • Weather, and its effect on what a skier can see
  • What the terrain contains naturally: rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, forest growth, and trees
  • Changing pitch, whether natural or produced by slope design, snowmaking, or grooming
  • Contact with a lift tower, sign, post, fence, hydrant, or water pipe in its usual position

Operator negligence (recovery possible)

  • Lift failures, bad loading, abrupt stops, drops, and unloading injuries
  • Signage required by the Act that was absent, incorrect, or illegible
  • Grooming or snowmaking machinery operated on an open trail without the warning the Act requires
  • Man-made obstacles left unpadded or unmarked within a skiing area
  • Negligent conduct by resort employees, instructors, or patrollers

The first classification should be treated as a starting point. A tower strike sits in the inherent column at first glance and moves to the second if the padding required on that tower was missing. That question is worth asking before anyone accepts the initial answer.

Skier duties and the downhill rule

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

Where another skier caused the harm, the statute favors the injured party. 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 argument that defeats most claims brought against a resort has been closed here by the legislature.

  1. Speed, course, and lookout

    Each skier must control speed and course at all times and keep a proper lookout for others. The statute then assigns the primary duty to the person skiing downhill, meaning whoever is descending from above, to avoid what is below them. Establishing who was where at the moment of contact is normally the contested issue.

  2. Signs and closed trails

    Posted information and warnings must be obeyed, and a trail posted as closed must not be skied. A skier is presumed to have seen and understood signs posted near base area lifts, on tramways, and on the trails skied.

  3. Starting and entering

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

  4. Devices for loose equipment

    Each ski or board requires 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

    Using a lift or a trail while impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance is prohibited, and so is leaving the vicinity of a collision that caused injury without giving your name and current address to a resort employee or ski patroller. Leaving to obtain aid is allowed if the information follows.

  6. What the current penalties actually say

    This subsection was rewritten and older printings of the Act still carry the previous language, so precision matters here. 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, which is a separate classification outside that $1,000 group.

  7. Comparative fault

    Responsibility is then divided. C.R.S. 13-21-111 permits recovery only where the claimant's negligence was not as great as the negligence of the party sued, and reduces the award by the claimant's share. When that share reaches half, the claim ends. Insurers understand that threshold, which is why the first account of a collision receives so much attention.

The truth about waivers

How much of a claim the release actually takes

Passes, tickets, and rental forms in Colorado all carry release language, written to discourage an injured person from going any further. It usually reaches less ground than it appears to.

A release in this state is read as a contract, which brings contract rules with it. The wording has to be clear and unambiguous, and it applies only to the conduct it names. Language aimed at ordinary negligence covers ordinary negligence and nothing beyond it.

What lies outside is the point. Willful and wanton conduct, recklessness, and gross negligence cannot be released. Where a resort knew of a hazard and left it, omitted an inspection it was required to perform, or continued running equipment it knew to be defective, the form does not carry the weight the resort is placing on it.

Children have their own 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 release alone and concluding the matter is closed is the usual mistake. Bring it in, and it gets measured against what actually happened.

Local Knowledge

A Level I in town, and a claim that belongs in the mountains

Trauma Care

The trauma center is the local fact that matters

HCA HealthONE Swedish, 501 E. Hampden Ave., is a designated Level I trauma center, and it sits inside Englewood. A Level I designation describes the top of the state's trauma system, the level equipped for the most severe injuries without transferring them onward. For ski cases that produces a local pattern worth understanding. Englewood is not near a ski area, and yet serious ski injuries arrive here. A skier hurt at a resort in Summit, Eagle, or Clear Creek county is first seen by patrol, then often at a clinic or a smaller hospital nearer the mountain, and if the injury is severe enough the next stop can be a Level I on the Front Range. So an Englewood resident may be treated at home for a crash that happened 80 miles west, and a skier from anywhere in Colorado may end up with the decisive part of their medical record generated inside this city. That matters for a case because it splits the record geographically. The patrol report and incident documentation stay with the resort. The stabilizing treatment sits with a mountain facility. The surgery, the imaging that establishes the true extent of a head or spinal injury, and the physicians who will testify about future care are frequently here. Three separate custodians, three separate release processes, three separate timelines. Collecting all of it is ordinary work and it is what turns an injury into a documented claim.

Courthouse

The 18th Judicial District is Arapahoe County, and only Arapahoe County

Englewood lies in Arapahoe County, which forms the 18th Judicial District. This is worth stating carefully, because the 18th was much larger until recently. Effective January 14, 2025, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln counties were separated into a new 23rd Judicial District, leaving the 18th as Arapahoe County alone. Anything written about this district before 2025 describes a court structure that no longer exists. District matters for Arapahoe County are handled at the Arapahoe County Justice Center, 7325 S. Potomac St., in Centennial, with a second location at the Arapahoe County Courthouse, 1790 W. Littleton Blvd., in Littleton. None of which is usually where a ski case is heard. Venue generally follows the resort and the place the injury occurred, so an Englewood skier hurt in the mountains is normally litigating in the county that contains the resort. The home district governs the claim only when the events themselves happened here.

The Corridor

Being treated locally does not move the case

This is the point most often misunderstood by someone who was flown back to Denver. The hospital that treated you does not determine where your claim belongs. The location of the injury does far more to answer that question. A skier who crashes at a resort in the 5th Judicial District and recovers at a Level I in Arapahoe County still has a claim rooted where the crash happened. Handling that separation is routine, and knowing it at the outset avoids filing in the wrong place.

Compensation

What an injured Englewood skier may be able to recover

Once negligence is established, Colorado sorts losses into those supported by documents and those that are not.

Economic damages

  • Removal from the mountain, air transport included where it was required
  • Emergency care, surgery, and specialist treatment through discharge
  • Wages lost during recovery, and earning capacity lost afterward
  • Physical and occupational rehabilitation
  • Care yet to come, including a life care plan where the injury justifies one
  • Out-of-pocket costs attributable 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, including the sport
  • In a death case, funeral expenses and the loss of companionship

The operator cap, and the lift exception inside it

The amount recoverable from a ski area operator 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 shape how it applies.

  • Injuries occurring to a passenger while riding on a passenger tramway are excluded from the cap by the statute's own terms, which is why a chairlift case is analyzed separately from an injury on the snow.
  • The cap applies to claims against an operator only. A claim against the skier who caused a collision is outside it.
  • A court may award above the ceiling on good cause shown, limited to excess future lost earnings or excess future medical and other 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

Both paths run 2 years. The statute that provides the period depends on who is being sued.

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 applies and requires the action to be brought within 2 years after the claim for relief arises. Against another skier that section is inapplicable, since its language addresses operators. The limitation there is C.R.S. 13-80-102(1)(a), the general 2-year period for tort actions.

The starting point has its own rule. 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. For most ski crashes that is the day it happened. Injuries that surface gradually, which covers a good deal of head and spine trauma, are why the provision is written in those terms. Waiting to see how serious the damage becomes does not extend the period.

Fault is assessed separately. C.R.S. 13-21-111 allows recovery while the claimant's negligence remains below that of the party sued, reduces the award in proportion to the claimant's share, and ends recovery at an even split. That threshold is well known to insurers, and the account of a collision that keeps a claimant clear of it is assembled from witnesses and records in the first weeks.

Why CGH

Why injured Englewood skiers choose CGH Injury Lawyers

Trial-Ready

Built for trial.

A file that is visibly 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

Split records get assembled.

A crash in the mountains and a surgery in Arapahoe County produce a record held by several institutions, and gathering all of it is part of the work.

How it works

How we handle an Englewood 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, from the mountain clinic through the trauma center to follow-up care, 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

Englewood ski accident, frequently asked questions

Which judicial district is Englewood in?

The 18th, which since January 14, 2025 covers Arapahoe County alone. Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln counties moved to the new 23rd Judicial District on that date. Arapahoe County matters are handled at the Arapahoe County Justice Center, 7325 S. Potomac St., in Centennial, and at the Arapahoe County Courthouse, 1790 W. Littleton Blvd., in Littleton.

I was flown to Swedish after a crash in the mountains. Does my case belong in Arapahoe County?

Usually not. The hospital that treated you does not decide venue. Venue generally follows the resort and the site of the injury, so a crash at a mountain resort is normally litigated in the county where it happened, even when the surgery and the follow-up care were here.

Why does it matter that Swedish is a Level I?

A Level I trauma center is equipped to treat the most severe injuries without transferring a patient onward, so it is often where the decisive medical evidence in a serious ski case is created. Imaging, surgery, and the physicians who can speak to future care are frequently found at that stage of the chain.

My records are spread across several hospitals. Is that a problem?

It is normal in ski cases and it is manageable. Patrol documentation stays with the resort, stabilizing care sits with a facility near the mountain, and definitive treatment often happens on the Front Range. Each custodian releases records separately, and collecting the full sequence is part of building the claim.

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 coming from 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 on 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

Englewood

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.