Colorado Ski Accident Lawyer

The second track is the pair of carve-outs written into that same definition. Inherent dangers and risks of skiing do not include the negligence of a ski area operator as set forth in 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. C.R.S. 33-44-104 does real work here: a violation of any requirement of the article by any person is negligence to the extent it causes injury, and subsection (2) says the same thing about an operator who violates the article or a passenger tramway safety board rule. That converts a missing sign or an unpadded hydrant from an argument into a statutory breach.

The third track is damages and who can actually pay them. A resort claim, a claim against another skier, and a claim against an equipment maker each reach a different pocket and a different ceiling. We look at coverage early, because the available insurance shapes what a realistic recovery looks like long before anyone files anything.

The first is the collision rule. Each skier has the duty to maintain control of speed and course and to keep a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. The statute then adds that the primary duty is on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below them. Read that phrase carefully. The person skiing downhill is the one descending, the skier coming from above, and that skier must avoid what is below. It describes direction of travel, not position on the hill.

The second is subsection (1), and it works in the injured skier's favor. In an action by one skier against another, the risk of a skier and skier collision is neither an inherent risk nor a risk assumed by a skier. So the same collision that appears on the inherent-danger list in C.R.S. 33-44-103 comes off that list when you sue the person who hit you. Both statements are in the statute and both are true.

The Act also carries penalties, and they are narrower than people expect. 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 with a fine of not more than $1,000. Under (12)(b), leaving the vicinity of an injury collision without giving your name and address is a petty offense. Reproductions of this Act still circulating online print a pre-2022 penalty that no longer exists.

One more point, because inaccurate summaries of this statute are everywhere. The Act is built around the term "ski area" and around sliding downhill or jumping on snow or ice. It draws no distinction between styles of skiing, and it sets no helmet requirement at any age.

A claim against a ski area operator or its employees runs on C.R.S. 33-44-111. All actions against an operator or its employees to recover damages for injury caused by the maintenance, supervision, or operation of a passenger tramway or a ski area must be brought within 2 years after the claim for relief arises. That section reaches operators and employees only. It does not reach the skier who hit you.

A claim against another skier runs on C.R.S. 13-80-102(1)(a), the general 2-year limit for tort actions. Accrual is set by C.R.S. 13-80-108(1): a cause of action for injury to person accrues on the date both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence. In most ski cases that is the day of the accident. It is a discovery rule, not a flat date-of-injury rule, and waiting to learn the full extent of your damages does not extend it.

Do not let 2 years read as breathing room. A claim against a public entity, a claim involving a minor, a wrongful death claim, or a claim with an out-of-state defendant can each change the analysis, and the evidence problems start in week one.

That threshold is why fault percentage is the whole fight in a lot of ski cases. An insurer will argue you were skiing beyond your ability, moving too fast for conditions, or entering the run without looking uphill. C.R.S. 33-44-104(1) cuts both ways here, since a violation of the article by any person is negligence to the extent it causes injury. The answer usually comes from patrol reports, witness accounts, terrain, sight lines, and the equipment, not from whoever tells the story with more confidence.

A resort's risk department may reach you while you are still in the clinic. You can say you are still being evaluated, that you will provide documents in writing, and that you are not giving a recorded statement today. If you are represented, that contact should come through your lawyer.

Some ski claims do not need a lawyer, and the first review should tell you which kind you have. If the answer is that the loss landed inside the statute's fence, we will say that and tell you what to keep. That answer is free and it takes one conversation.