Van Dyke v. S.K.I. Ltd.

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 963·67 Cal. App. 4th 1310·79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 775·98 Daily Journal DAR 12001·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8586
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 23, 1998G021475California3,588 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

John M. Van Dyke appeals the judgment entered against him after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of S.K.I. Ltd. and Killington West Ltd. (collectively Bear Mountain) and denied his motion for summary adjudication. He contends he showed triable issues of facts as to assumption of risk and S.K.I. Ltd.’s owner/operator status at the ski area where he was injured. We reverse with directions.

On Ms first trip to the Bear Mountain Ski Resort, Van Dyke skied with tMee friends.* He was an experienced skier, having skied about 25 to 35 times in the preceding 5 years. He rated Mmself as an upper intermediate to lower advanced skier. He understood skiing involved risk, that it was not injury free. He knew a skier must ski under control, wMch means being able to stop before coming into contact with hazards one can see.

The four men began skiing about 10:30 a.m. The weather was warm, sunny and clear. Their first run of the day was down the “Showtime” run, wMch is accessed by chair lift No. 1. Showtime is a “most difficult” run, designed for advanced skiers. The run was open and clear, with few other skiers and no moguls.

Just before their second run, wMch was also…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.