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

Pueblo Ski Accident Lawyers, and the Long Drive West

From Pueblo the mountains are reached going west on US-50, and Monarch sits at the top of the pass in Chaffee County, about 20 miles beyond Salida. Pueblo has 2 designated trauma centers of its own, both Level III, which means a serious ski injury here usually involves a transfer and a medical record held in more than one place. 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 meet a statute written for them before they meet ordinary negligence.
  • What happens on a lift is governed separately from what happens on the snow, damages included.
  • Release language is contractual, and it does not reach reckless or grossly negligent conduct.
  • Both deadlines run 2 years, from different statutes depending on who is being sued.
  • 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

An ordinary injury case begins with the question of who was careless. A ski case begins earlier, because the legislature addressed this activity by statute and courts work from that statute first. The Ski Safety Act of 1979, C.R.S. 33-44-101 and following, states what duties a resort owes, what duties a skier owes, and which hazards support no claim against anyone at all.

Those hazards are set out at C.R.S. 33-44-103 in a deliberately broad definition. Changing weather is in it. Snow in all its conditions is in it, 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 inside that definition stays with the skier who suffered it.

The definition then narrows itself in 2 places, and those 2 places carry nearly every claim. Inherent dangers and risks of skiing do not include the negligence of a ski area operator as set forth 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, because unreliable reproductions of this Act are common. 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 comes after. The statute divides the ground this way.

Inherent dangers (no recovery)

  • Whatever the snow was doing that day, and the dirt showing through where it ran thin
  • The sky, and how much of the run you could actually make out under it
  • Rock, stump, streambed, cliff, tree, and everything else the mountain put there itself
  • A slope that steepens without warning, whether shaped by weather or by a grooming cat
  • Colliding with a tower, sign, post, fence, hydrant, or pipe standing in its usual spot

Operator negligence (recovery possible)

  • Anything the lift did wrong: a failure, a bad load, a hard stop, a drop, an unload injury
  • A warning the Act required that never went up, went up wrong, or could not be read
  • Machinery working a run that was left open, without the warning the statute calls for
  • Something the resort installed and then failed to pad or mark inside a skiing area
  • Carelessness by the people the resort employs, teaches with, or patrols with

Do not read that first column as the end of the analysis. A tower collision starts there and does not necessarily stay there, because a tower that should have been padded and was not moves the question into the second column. Ask it before someone else's classification hardens into the answer.

Skier duties and the downhill rule

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

Where the harm came from another skier, 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. 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

Nobody buys a lift ticket expecting to read it. The waiver printed on the back, or clicked through online, exists to make an injured skier abandon the idea before speaking to anyone. Measured against the law it is a narrower document than it sounds.

Start from what it is. A waiver is a contract, and Colorado holds it to contract standards: it has to say plainly what it covers, and it covers nothing else. A resort that drafted against ordinary carelessness has obtained protection against ordinary carelessness, and has bought nothing beyond that.

Then look at what falls outside it, because that is usually where a real claim sits. No waiver in this state can excuse willful and wanton conduct, reckless conduct, or gross negligence. Suppose a hazard was known and left alone. Suppose a required inspection never happened. Suppose equipment stayed in service after somebody recognized the fault. In each of those the signature does not protect the resort.

Minors are governed by their own provision. C.R.S. 13-22-107(3) gives a parent authority to release or waive a child's prospective negligence claim for that child. Subsection (4) then removes the authority for a willful and wanton act or omission, a reckless act or omission, or a grossly negligent act or omission.

Treating the signature as the end of the matter is where most people go wrong. What was signed is one fact. What was done is the other, and the two get weighed together.

Local Knowledge

Two Level III centers, a pass road, and a claim that travels

Courthouse

The 10th Judicial District is Pueblo County

Pueblo is the seat of Pueblo County, which forms the 10th Judicial District on its own. District business is handled at the Pueblo Combined Court, 501 N. Elizabeth St., Pueblo, CO 81003. Pueblo County contains no ski area. Venue in these cases generally follows the resort and the place the injury happened, so a Pueblo skier's claim is normally litigated in whichever county the resort sits in. Monarch Mountain, the closest option for many people here, is on Monarch Pass in Chaffee County, about 20 miles west of Salida on US-50. Wolf Creek, Purgatory, and the resorts up I-70 are further still, each in its own county and its own district. So the practical starting question for a Pueblo case is not which court is nearby, but which county the injury occurred in.

Trauma Care

Designated care in town, at one level

Pueblo has 2 designated trauma centers: Parkview Medical Center, 400 W. 16th St., and St. Mary-Corwin Hospital, 1008 Minnequa Ave. Both carry a Level III designation. A Level III facility is built to evaluate, stabilize, and move a patient onward when the injury calls for a higher level of care. Higher designations in this part of the state are in Colorado Springs, where UCHealth Memorial Hospital Central at 1400 E. Boulder St. holds a Level I designation and Penrose Hospital at 2222 N. Nevada Ave. holds a Level II from the state health department. For a serious ski injury the consequence is a medical record that moves several times. Patrol at the resort, then a facility somewhere near the mountain, then a transport that may be by air, then a receiving hospital that could be in Pueblo or further north, then months of follow-up. Every one of those institutions keeps its own file, on its own schedule, and releases it separately. Reassembling the sequence is routine work, and it is what actually shows how serious an injury was instead of simply asserting it. There is a second, quieter consequence. When care is delivered across several counties, the bills arrive from several places too, often over many months and often from providers a patient never chose. Keeping that paperwork, instead of discarding it, makes the economic side of a claim simpler to prove later.

The Corridor

The road is part of the risk, and it is a different body of law

Getting from Pueblo to Monarch means US-50 west and a climb over Monarch Pass, which sits above 11,000 feet at the Continental Divide. Winter conditions on that road are their own hazard, separate from anything the Ski Safety Act governs. That distinction matters legally. A crash on US-50 is an ordinary motor vehicle claim, decided under ordinary negligence rules, with none of the Act's inherent-risk framework applying. An injury on the ski area is a Ski Safety Act matter. Establishing precisely where an injury happened is therefore the first step, because it determines which body of law governs, which deadline statute applies, and who the defendant can be.

Compensation

What an injured Pueblo 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

  • Whatever it cost to get you down and out, a flight included when one was needed
  • The hospital side of it: emergency treatment, operations, specialists, up to discharge
  • Paychecks missed while healing, and the earning power that did not come back
  • Rehabilitation, on both the physical and the occupational side
  • Treatment still ahead, priced through a life care plan where the injury is severe
  • What you paid out of your own pocket because of the injury

Non-economic damages

  • The suffering that follows a broken bone, a damaged spine, or a head injury
  • Function that does not return, and impairment that is permanent
  • The parts of life you no longer enjoy, skiing among them
  • After a death, the funeral and the companionship that went with it

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 providing 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 Pueblo 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

Transfers get tracked.

Care that starts at a mountain facility and finishes in Pueblo or Colorado Springs leaves records in several counties, and gathering all of them is part of the work.

How it works

How we handle a Pueblo 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 and billing are collected from every facility in the chain, 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

Pueblo ski accident, frequently asked questions

Which judicial district is Pueblo in?

The 10th, which is Pueblo County. District matters are handled at the Pueblo Combined Court, 501 N. Elizabeth St., in Pueblo.

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

Monarch Mountain is on Monarch Pass in Chaffee County, about 20 miles west of Salida on US-50. Venue generally follows the resort and the site of the injury, so a claim from Monarch is normally litigated in the county containing the resort and not in Pueblo County.

Pueblo has two hospitals. What level are they?

Parkview Medical Center on West 16th Street and St. Mary-Corwin Hospital on Minnequa Avenue both carry a Level III trauma designation. Higher designations in this region are in Colorado Springs, at UCHealth Memorial Hospital Central, which is Level I, and Penrose Hospital, which the state designates Level II.

I was transferred to Colorado Springs. Does that complicate my claim?

It is common and it is manageable. A transfer means records exist at more than one facility, each released separately, and assembling the full chain is part of building the case. Keeping the bills that arrive afterward makes the economic side considerably easier to prove.

I crashed on US-50 driving to the mountain, not on the slope. Is that the same kind of claim?

No. A collision on the highway is an ordinary motor vehicle claim under ordinary negligence law. The Ski Safety Act and its inherent-risk framework govern injuries on the ski area, so pinning down 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

Pueblo

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.