A judge will let a jury decide whether Vail is responsible for the death of a 13-year-old boy who died in an inbound avalanche at the ski area in 2012.
Taft Conlin’s parents filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against The Vail Corp., claiming that the resort violated the Colorado Ski Safety Act when it closed the upper access to the Prima Cornice run but did not close the lower entrance.
In an order issued Tuesday, Broomfield County District Court Judge Chris Melonakis ruled that Vail may be found liable in Conlin’s death and the case will continue to trial. He said Vail failed to prove it is protected under the ski-safety act, because it did not fulfill its responsibilities under the law when operators did not close the lower entrance to the run.
“The Court finds that the risk of injury or death by an avalanche is substantial and foreseeable,” Melonakis wrote in his order. “The burden of placing a sign or rope at the point where the terrain adjoins or intersects is slight when balanced against the nature of the risk of serious injury or death.”
The ruling could have major implications for Colorado ski operators, who have long been insulated by the state law and allowed to escape any liability for injuries and deaths at ski areas. The ski-safety act spells out responsibilities for skiers and snowboarders and grants immunity to ski operators from “inherent dangers” of the sport.
If the case goes to trial, it would be the first one involving an avalanche within the boundaries of a ski area to go before a Colorado jury, said attorney Jim Heckbert, who is representing Conlin’s family.
The case is being handled in Broomfield County, where Vail’s headquarters are located.
In February, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that avalanches within the boundaries of open runs at Colorado ski resorts are an inherent danger. The wrongful-death suit in that case was brought by the wife of Christopher Norris, a 28-year-old father of two who died in an inbounds avalanche in Winter Park’s Trestle Trees in 2012.
Heckbert, who also represents the Norris family, said he has asked the Colorado Supreme Court to review the decision.
After the court of appeals’ ruling, the judge overseeing the Vail case asked both parties to file a brief describing whether the decision meant the Vail case should be dismissed.
In their lawsuit, Conlin’s parents claim the law requires ski operators to place ropes or signs at all the entrances to a closed run. Vail agrees that the lower entrance was not marked closed, but when Conlin sidestepped up into an area between the two entrances, he “knew or reasonably should have known that the slope uphill from the gate was closed.”
Melonakis denied Vail’s response, which claimed the operators who did not close the lower entrance to the ski run are protected by the ski-safety act.
Heckbert said the ruling implies that ski operators that do not follow the “minimal” responsibilities required of them — including running a rope across the entrance of a closed run — may be held responsible for injuries or deaths, even if those deaths or injuries involve inherent risks.
“I feel that immunity breads irresponsibility,” Heckbert said. “You give the ski area so much immunity from being responsible for carelessness that bad things happen.”
Robert Blume, the attorney representing Vail, says the case “remains unchanged” and he and the resort are confident a jury will agree that avalanches are an inherent risk.
“This is a case involving an inherent danger of skiing and the tragic decision to take inappropriate risks and hike far into closed terrain,” Blume said in a statement.
Louise Ingalls, Conlin’s mother, was pleased with Melonakis’ decision.
“I’m delighted with the judge’s order, and he really seems to capture the essence of what we are doing here,” Ingalls said. “We are really just standing up for Taft.”
Jordan Steffen: 303-954-1794, jsteffen@denverpost.com or twitter.com/jsteffendp
