Annie Miller, a 16-year-old from Oklahoma, was left paralyzed after a tragic accident on the Paradise Express chairlift at Crested Butte Mountain Resort in March 2022. A recent ruling awarded her $12.4 million after a jury found that safety standards were violated during the incident, marking a significant milestone in liability disputes surrounding ski resorts.
Miller was skiing with her church group when she fell approximately 30 feet from the chairlift. Her family contended that the lift operators acted negligently; they failed to halt the chairlift when Miller was unable to load properly. Despite her father’s attempt to catch her, she plummeted onto hard-packed snow, resulting in severe injuries to her spinal cord.
Vail Resorts, which owns the ski area, has maintained that the company should not be liable due to the Colorado Ski Safety Act. This law mandates that skiers adhere to safety regulations, including proper loading techniques, and it also limits potential damages to $200,000. Vail Resorts pointed to a liability waiver signed by the Miller family when purchasing lift tickets as a defense against negligence claims—a strategy that has historically favored ski resorts in legal disputes.
In April 2023, a Broomfield County District Court judge dismissed two of the negligence claims from the Miller family, citing the liability waiver. These claims referenced the lift operators’ responsibilities for ensuring safety and compliance with safety standards developed by the American National Standards Institute.
However, the Colorado Supreme Court intervened in May 2024, determining that the typical liability waivers associated with lift ticket purchases do not exempt ski resorts from all negligence claims. This landmark decision raised concerns within the recreation industry, including rafting and youth camp operators, who feared potential ramifications such as increased insurance rates and higher operational costs.
The case returned to Broomfield County District Court, where a jury spent nine days deliberating over the primary negligence claims. The jury ultimately agreed that the lift attendants had indeed breached safety standards, although they did not find gross negligence to support the family’s claim for punitive damages. The award totaled $15.8 million, reflecting a 25 percent reduction in liability assigned to the resort, thus capping noneconomic losses at $690,000 as per Colorado law.
The verdict is notable as a significant challenge to the immunity traditionally afforded to ski resorts through liability waivers and safety regulations. Historically, such waivers have not protected recreational businesses from claims of intentional or reckless conduct, a legal definition that includes gross negligence. Despite decades where smaller lapses in safety were often dismissed, this ruling has recalibrated expectations surrounding the accountability of ski resorts.
Miller’s legal team argued that lift attendants must adhere to specific safety standards and should be trained to act appropriately in emergency situations, particularly regarding the operation of chairlifts. They pointed out that even if a skier does not board a chairlift correctly, operators must remain vigilant and ready to prevent accidents.
Responses from Vail Resorts indicated disappointment with the jury’s decision. A spokesperson expressed a commitment to the highest safety standards while acknowledging the profound personal impact of the accident on Miller and her family. Experts in the resort industry are raising concerns that substantial verdicts could have implications for insurance costs, especially for smaller operations.
The resort industry, which emphasizes the safe operation of chairlifts, reports a low fatality rate compared to other forms of transportation. Nevertheless, recent years have seen an uptick in accidents, prompting discussions about the implications of rising visitor numbers and potential lapses in operational oversight.
The verdict not only underscores the importance of maintaining strict safety protocols at ski resorts but also serves as a warning sign to operators about the consequences of failing to meet these standards. Proponents of the decision assert that it underscores a critical need for accountability in ensuring skier safety and protecting guests.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.