Teri Lackner v. Cassidy North

Snowboarding in a “tuck” may be reckless

Facts

Cassidy North plowed into Teri Lackner when she was skiing at Mammoth Mountain in Mono County, California. Lackner v. North, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).

Lackner was injured when high school racer and expert snowboarder, North collided with her at the bottom of an expert ski trail, Cornice Bowl. Id. at 1194. North, skiing at Mammoth for a high school championship ski race, struck Lackner after descending Cornice Bowl in a “tucked” position and at high speed. Id. at 1195. Lackner was standing still at a flat area used by Mammoth skiers as a meeting place. Id. Lackner’s injuries were extensive, including a shattered ankle, tibia and pelvis fractures, and torn thigh tendons. Id.

Lackner, an expert skier and long time patron of Mammoth Mountain, alleged that North acted recklessly by skiing in a tucked position. Id. North filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that Lackner assumed the risk of collision by participating in skiing and that he did not ski recklessly while descending Cornice Bowl. Id. North asserted that an expert skier, skiing on expert terrain and at a high rate of speed is part of the sport of skiing. Id. at 1198-99. The court held that a triable issue of fact existed because North was an expert snowboarder, aware of the fact that skiing fast into a flat area where people congregate is likely to create a dangerous condition. Id. at 1201.

Additionally, Lackner alleged that Mammoth Mountain “created a dangerous and defective condition that increased the risks inherent in skiing [] by failing to enforce and supervise [race participants using ski runs] and by failing to warn patrons that race participants were permitted to train on ordinary ski runs.” Id. at 1201. Mammoth argued that it had no duty to “eliminate or protect [skiers] from [] collisions.” Id. at 1202. Ruling for Mammoth, the court held that ski areas do not have a duty to protect skiers from collisions, which are an inherent risk of skiing. Id. at 1201. Further, the court stated that Mammoth allows racing on its expert trails and that Mammoth employees have no duty to ask skiers to slow down. Id. at 1202. “That he may have been reckless at the bottom of the run does not alter Mammoth’s duty of care in the absence of evidence mammoth knew or should have known North or other race participants were reckless.” Id. at 1203.

Skiing fast into a resting area may be reckless conduct. Expert skiers may be held to a higher standard because of their knowledge of skiing.