Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.9-35

The plaintiff <insert name of plaintiff> alleges that (he/she) was injured as a result of the

negligent conduct of the defendant, <insert name of defendant>, a ski area operator. A “ski area

operator” is defined as a person or entity who owns or controls the operation of a ski area and

their agents and employees. “Operation of the ski area” means those services offered by the

operator as components of its business activity. In Connecticut, we have two statutes that

describe when a ski area operator may or may not be liable to compensate a skier for injuries to

(his/her) person or property sustained while skiing at the ski area.

[<If the parties agree that the plaintiff was a “skier”:> The parties agree that <insert name of

plaintiff> was a “skier” at the ski area of <insert name of defendant>.]

[<If the parties dispute whether the plaintiff was a “skier”:> A “skier” is defined by statute to

mean a person who is using a ski area for the purpose of skiing or who is on the skiable terrain of

a ski area as a spectator or otherwise. “Skiing” is defined to include “sliding downhill or

jumping on snow or ice using skis, snow blades, a snowbike, a sitski, or any other device that is

controllable by its edges on snow or ice or is for the purpose of utilizing any skiable terrain . . .

.”]

Under the applicable statutes, a ski area operator is not liable for harm to a skier or to the skier’s

property that is caused by the hazards inherent in the sport of skiing. Such hazards include, but

are not limited to <include as applicable>:

• natural variations in the terrain of the trail or slope, as well as variations in

surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions, but not variations that are caused

by the ski area operator unless such variations are caused by snow making,

snow grooming or rescue operations;

• bare spots that do not require the closing of the trail or slope;

• conspicuously placed or, if not so placed, conspicuously marked lift towers;

• trees or other objects not within the confines of the trail or slope;

• loading, unloading or otherwise using a passenger tramway without

prior knowledge of proper loading and unloading procedures or without

reading instructions concerning loading and unloading posted at the

base of such passenger tramway or without asking for such instructions;

and

• collisions with any other person by any skier while skiing, but not collisions

with on-duty employees of the ski area operator who are skiing and are acting

within the scope of their employment at the time of the collision.

The specific hazards that I just mentioned are not the only hazards that are inherent in the sport

of skiing. As I have explained, a ski area operator is not liable for injuries suffered by skiers

while skiing if those injuries are caused by hazards that are inherent in the sport of skiing,

including inherent hazards that I have not specifically mentioned.

I have just related for you those circumstances in which a ski area operator cannot be held liable

for a skier’s injuries or damage to a skier’s property. When is a ski area operator liable for such

harm? Ski area operators must perform certain duties, including, but not limited to <include as

applicable>:

• conspicuously marking all trail maintenance vehicles and furnishing the vehicles

with flashing or rotating lights which shall be operated whenever the vehicles are

working or moving within the skiing area;

• conspicuously marking the location of any hydrant or similar device used

in snow-making operations and placed on a trail or slope;

• conspicuously marking the entrance to each trail or slope with a symbol,

adopted or approved by the National Ski Areas Association, which identifies

the relative degree of difficulty of such trail or slope or warns that such trail or

slope is closed;

• maintaining one or more trail boards, at prominent locations within the ski area,

displaying such area’s network of ski trails and slopes and designating each trail

or slope in the manner described above and notifying each skier that the wearing

of ski retention straps or other devices used to prevent runaway skis is required;

• conspicuously marking any lift tower that is located on a trail or slope and is

not readily visible;

• in the event maintenance personnel or equipment are being employed on any

trail or slope during the hours at which such trail or slope is open to the public,

conspicuously posting notice thereof at the entrance to such trail or slope; and

• conspicuously marking trail or slope intersections.

This nonexhaustive list describes duties that a ski area operator is obligated to perform with

reasonable care. If the agents or employees negligently fail to perform any of these tasks or

perform one or more of them negligently, and those negligent actions or inactions were a cause

of the injuries and damages that the plaintiff <insert name of plaintiff> claims (he/she) sustained,

then the ski area operator <insert name of defendant> may be liable to the plaintiff [<insert if

comparative negligence is at issue:> after applying the comparative negligence rules about

which I will instruct you shortly].

<Instruct on other definitional sections if necessary.>

As you may have perceived, although a ski area operator is not liable for injuries or damages

sustained by a skier as a result of hazards that are inherent in the sport of skiing, ski area

operators may be liable if they fail to perform duties that are inherent in operating a ski area. The

plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the unsafe condition

or circumstance that caused (him/her) harm as a skier at the defendant’s ski area was not a

hazard that is inherent in the sport of skiing and that the ski area operator, through its agents or

employees, breached the standard of reasonable care with respect to one or more of the ski area

operator’s duties. It is for you to determine the answers to these factual questions.

<Discuss specific allegations.>

<Instruct on negligence and causation.>

<Instruct on comparative negligence if applicable.>

Authorities

Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 269 Conn. 672, 680, 687 (2004); Id., 714-715

(Borden J., dissenting); General Statutes §§ 29-211 and 29-212.