Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd.

Supreme Court of Vermont · 1995 · Torts

TortsExculpatory agreementsPublic policyPremises liabilityAssumption of riskski resortrelease from liabilitynegligence waiver

Facts

Before the ski season, plaintiff bought a midweek season pass at Killington Ski Area and signed a release stating that, as a condition of using the premises, he released Killington and its employees and agents from any liability for personal injury or property damage resulting from negligence, conditions of the premises, ski-area operations, and employee acts or omissions. He also signed a photo identification card containing the same language. Later, while skiing at the resort, plaintiff collided with a metal pole that was part of the control maze for a ski lift line and suffered serious injuries. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were negligent in the design, construction, and replacement of the maze pole.

Issue

Is a clear exculpatory agreement that a ski resort requires recreational skiers to sign, releasing the resort from liability for its own negligence, enforceable, or is it void as contrary to public policy?

Rule

Even if clearly drafted, an exculpatory agreement is unenforceable when it violates public policy. In determining public policy, the court considers the totality of the circumstances against current societal expectations, treating formulations such as the Tunkl factors as relevant considerations rather than rigid prerequisites; where a business open to the public seeks to disclaim its duty to keep premises reasonably safe for business invitees, a broad release of liability for the business's own negligence is void.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North Ridge Snow Park operates a large ski resort near Burlington, Vermont and sells day tickets to anyone who pays at the window. Every customer must sign a form releasing the resort from liability for injuries caused by negligent maintenance of the premises. Lena Ortiz is hurt when she strikes an unsecured metal barrier placed in a lift corral and sues for negligence.

If the resort moves for summary judgment based solely on the signed release, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that even a clear exculpatory agreement is void if it violates public policy. In the public recreational setting, a ski area open to the public owes business invitees a duty of active care to maintain reasonably safe premises, and it may not require customers to release it from liability for its own negligence as a condition of access. The issue is not resolved by the sport's hazardous nature or by the clarity of the wording.