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

Longmont Ski Accident Lawyers, With the Courthouse in Town

Boulder County runs a second courthouse in Longmont, on Kimbark Street, and Boulder County also contains a ski area. That combination is rare on the Front Range: for a skier who was hurt at Eldora, the resort, the county, and a courthouse can all sit inside the 20th Judicial District. Longmont itself has 2 designated trauma centers. 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
  • Ski injuries in Colorado are decided under a statute written for them, ahead of ordinary negligence.
  • A lift injury and a snow injury are governed by different provisions, damages included.
  • Release language on a pass is contractual, and no contract reaches reckless or grossly negligent conduct.
  • Both deadlines are 2 years, drawn from different statutes depending 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

The usual first question in an injury case is whether somebody was careless. In a ski case that question waits, because the legislature reached this activity directly. The Ski Safety Act of 1979, C.R.S. 33-44-101 and following, states what a resort must do, what a skier must do, and which hazards give rise to no claim against anyone at all.

The hazards sit at C.R.S. 33-44-103, in a definition written to cover a great deal. Weather that changes is in it. Snow across its whole range is in it, ice, hard pack, powder, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow. So is what lies at and beneath the surface, meaning bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees. So is changing steepness, whether the mountain made it or slope design, snowmaking, and grooming did. So is impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences, hydrants, water pipes, and other built structures. An injury inside that definition stays with the skier.

The definition then draws 2 boundaries around itself, and nearly every real claim sits at one of them. 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). And nothing in the section limits an operator's liability for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.

A point of accuracy first, since inaccurate reproductions of this Act are common. The statute is built on the term "ski area" and on sliding downhill or jumping on snow or ice. It does not sort resorts by style of skiing, and it imposes no helmet requirement on a skier of any age.

The critical distinction

The one question that decides most of the case

Most of what follows is settled by one early classification. This is where the statute draws the line.

Inherent dangers (no recovery)

  • Snow and ice in every condition, and the ground under them where cover runs thin
  • Weather, and what it does to a skier's visibility
  • Natural features of the terrain: rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, forest growth, and trees
  • Pitch that changes, naturally or through slope design, snowmaking, or grooming
  • Contact with a lift tower, sign, post, fence, hydrant, or water pipe standing where it always has

Operator negligence (recovery possible)

  • Lift malfunctions, bad loading, sudden stops, drops, and injuries during unloading
  • Signage required by the Act that was missing, incorrect, or unreadable
  • Grooming or snowmaking equipment run on an open trail without the required warning
  • Built obstacles left unpadded or unmarked within a skiing area
  • Careless conduct by resort employees, instructors, or patrollers

Hold that first classification loosely. A tower strike belongs in the inherent column on its face and shifts into the second if the padding that should have been on the tower was absent. Worth asking before anyone treats the answer as fixed.

Skier duties and the downhill rule

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

Where the cause was another skier, the statute leans toward the injured party. C.R.S. 33-44-109(1) provides that the risk of a collision between skiers is neither an inherent risk nor a risk assumed by a skier in an action by one skier against another. The defense that ends most claims against a resort has been shut off here by the legislature's own words.

  1. Speed, course, and lookout

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

  2. Signs and closed trails

    Posted information and warnings must 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, carries 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

    Riding 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. Leaving to secure aid is allowed, so long as the information follows.

  6. What the current penalties actually say

    This subsection was rewritten and older reproductions still print the earlier wording, so care is warranted. 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, recovery is finished. That arithmetic explains an insurer's interest in fixing the account of a collision 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, written to make an injured person stop before they start. It ordinarily accomplishes less than it appears to.

Colorado reads a release as a contract, so contract law governs it. The wording must 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 courthouse in town, a ski area in the county, and 2 trauma centers on the same street grid

Courthouse

The 20th Judicial District sits on both ends of this

Longmont is in Boulder County, which forms the 20th Judicial District on its own. Boulder County runs court business at 2 locations: the Boulder County Combined Court, 1777 6th St., Boulder, and the Boulder County Combined Court in Longmont, 1035 Kimbark St. What makes this district unusual for ski cases is the other end of it. Eldora Mountain Resort is inside Boulder County, reached through Boulder Canyon on SH-119 past Nederland. Venue in these cases generally follows the resort and the place the injury happened, so a Longmont skier hurt at Eldora has an accident, a home, and a courthouse all inside the same judicial district. On the Front Range that alignment is uncommon. A skier who drives to Summit or Eagle county is normally litigating far from home. The alignment holds only for Eldora. Head up I-70 or north to Steamboat and the claim leaves the 20th, because the location of the injury does far more to determine venue than the location of the injured person. Longmont also extends into Weld County at its eastern edge, and Weld is the 19th Judicial District, which can matter for local matters even though it rarely changes where a ski claim belongs.

Trauma Care

Two Level III centers in one city

Longmont has 2 designated trauma centers: Longmont United Hospital, 1950 Mountain View Ave., and Longs Peak Hospital, 1750 E. Ken Pratt Blvd. Both carry a Level III designation. Boulder County also holds Level II designations at Foothills Hospital in Boulder and at Intermountain Health Good Samaritan Hospital in Lafayette, and a Level III at AdventHealth Avista in Louisville. A Level III facility is built to evaluate, stabilize, and transfer a patient onward when the injury calls for a higher level of care. For a serious ski injury the practical consequence is a record that moves. Patrol at the resort, then a mountain clinic or hospital, then possibly a flight, then a Level III or Level II closer to home, then months of follow-up. Each institution keeps its own file, on its own schedule, and releases it separately. Putting that sequence back together is routine work, and it is how the seriousness of an injury is actually demonstrated instead of asserted. Having 2 designated centers in one city also creates a small practical problem worth naming: family members sometimes remember the wrong one. Confirming which hospital treated you, and when, is an early step and it prevents a records request going to the wrong custodian and coming back empty.

The Corridor

A canyon drive with its own conditions

The road to Eldora runs up Boulder Canyon and through Nederland, a mountain route that ices and closes on its own schedule. That matters twice over. It shapes when Longmont skiers go, which is often midweek and often for a half day. And it means the drive itself is part of the day's risk, distinct from anything covered by the Ski Safety Act. A crash on SH-119 is an ordinary motor vehicle claim governed by ordinary negligence law, with none of the Act's inherent-risk framework applying to it. Knowing which body of law is in play starts with knowing exactly where the injury occurred.

Compensation

What an injured Longmont skier may be able to recover

Once negligence is established, Colorado separates losses that arrive with paperwork from those that do not.

Economic damages

  • Evacuation from the mountain, including air transport 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 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 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 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

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 Longmont 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

In-district cases get treated as such.

An Eldora injury can belong in the 20th Judicial District, and that is worth establishing at the start instead of assuming the case has to travel.

How it works

How we handle a Longmont 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, with the treating hospital confirmed at the outset, 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

Longmont ski accident, frequently asked questions

Which judicial district is Longmont in?

The 20th, which is Boulder County. The county runs court business at the Boulder County Combined Court, 1777 6th St. in Boulder, and at the Boulder County Combined Court in Longmont, 1035 Kimbark St. Longmont's eastern edge extends into Weld County, which is the 19th Judicial District.

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

Eldora is in Boulder County, and venue generally follows the resort and the site of the injury, so a claim from Eldora commonly stays in the 20th Judicial District. That makes it one of the few Front Range cities where a ski case can be litigated close to home.

What if I was hurt at a resort off I-70 instead?

Then the claim usually goes to the county containing that resort. Where you live does not move venue; the location of the injury does most of the work in answering that question.

Longmont has two hospitals. Does it matter which one treated me?

It matters for records. Longmont United Hospital on Mountain View Avenue and Longs Peak Hospital on East Ken Pratt Boulevard both carry Level III trauma designations, and each keeps its own file. Confirming which one treated you, and on what date, prevents a records request going to the wrong place.

A Level III sounds lower. Is that a problem for my case?

No. A Level III center is built to evaluate, stabilize, and transfer a patient when a higher level of care is needed, and Boulder County also has Level II designations in Boulder and Lafayette. From a case standpoint a transfer simply produces records at more than one facility, which is normal and is part of what gets assembled.

I crashed on the drive up the canyon, not on the slope. Is that the same kind of claim?

No. A collision on the road is an ordinary motor vehicle claim under ordinary negligence law. The Ski Safety Act and its inherent-risk framework apply to injuries on the ski area, so establishing exactly where the injury happened is the first step.

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 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

Longmont

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.