BOISE, Idaho (Legal Newsline) - The famous Sun Valley ski resort must face a lawsuit by the widow of a man who died after crashing into a snowmaking machine on a beginner run, the Idaho Supreme Court said, ruling a jury must decide whether the padding met the standard for warnings.
The jurors must also figure out whether the widow is telling the truth when she claims there was no sign telling skiers snowmaking was in progress.
The decision reverses a trial judge’s dismissal of the lawsuit against Sun Valley under a state law written to protect the skiing industry against most such litigation. That law, Idaho Code section 6-1103, requires ski areas to mark snowmaking equipment with “a visible sign or other warning implement” but states they have no duty to “eliminate, alter, control or lessen the risks inherent in the sport of skiing.”
Laura Milus sued Sun Valley after her husband Stewart died in a 2019 collision with a snowmaking gun in the middle of the Lower River Run on Bald Mountain.
Sun Valley argued it met its duties under Section 6-1103 by enclosing the snowmaking gun in yellow padding and placing a sign, “CAUTION SNOWMAKING IN PROGRESS,” at the top of the lift. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case, finding the yellow padding met the definition of “warning implement” and it had no duty to place a sign at the top of the hill unless it was actively making snow.
Milus appealed and the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the dismissal in a Dec. 19 decision.
Sun Valley cited a 1990 Idaho Supreme Court decision involving the ski area, Northcutt v. Sun Valley, which held the law eliminates any standard of care for operators when they attempt to reduce the risks of skiing. Milus argued that decision made it impossible for plaintiffs to win a lawsuit, and Supreme Court, saying the standard of care portion of Northcutt wasn’t binding precedent because it failed to draw a majority of votes.
Sun Valley argued it didn’t matter because the yellow padding served as a “warning implement” under the law. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that was a fact question for the jury to decide.
The trial judge also held the law’s requirement that a sign be placed at the top of the run when “snowmaking operations are being undertaken” meant “when snow is being made.” The Supreme Court found room for disagreement, saying the phrase is “broad and encompasses more than the discharge or production of snow.”
“Warning skiers of dangerous obstacles on the ski run or slope gives a skier the opportunity to choose a different ski run or to ski in a more cautious manner,” the majority held.
The majority also rejected Sun Valley’s argument it had a sign at the top of the run anyway, backed by evidence including a photograph of the sign and a signed declaration by the director of mountain operations that it was in place the day of the accident. Milus claimed she didn’t see the sign, perhaps because it was knocked over or missing that day. A jury should decide if she’s telling the truth, the court ruled.
The plaintiff was represented by Rossman Law Group, while Sun Valley was represented by Lake City Law Group.