CLOVER V. SNOWBIRD SKI RESORT 808 P.2d 1037 (1991) CASE BRIEF

CLOVER V. SNOWBIRD SKI RESORT

808 P.2d 1037 (1991)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Clover (P) appealed a summary judgment in favor of Snowbird (D), the resort operator and the employee.

FACTS: Zulliger (D1) was employed by Snowbird (D) as a chef at the Plaza Restaurant. D1 was supervised by his father, Hans Zulliger. On December 5, 1985 prior to beginning work, he had planned to go skiing with Barney Norman, who was also employed as a chef at the Plaza. D preferred that their employees know how to ski because it made it easier for them to get to and from work. As part of the compensation for their employment, both D1 and Norman received season ski passes. On the morning of the accident, D1 was to inspect the operation of the Mid-Gad prior to beginning work at the Plaza. D1 and Norman stopped at the Mid-Gad in the middle of their first run. They then skied four runs before heading down the mountain to begin work. On their final run, they took a route that was often taken by D employees to travel from the top of the mountain to the Plaza. D1 decided to take a jump off a crest on the side of an intermediate run. He had taken this jump many times before. It is impossible for skiers above the crest to see skiers below the crest. D had often instructed people not to jump off the crest. There was also a sign instructing skiers to ski slowly at this point in the run. D1 ignored the sign and skied over the crest at a significant speed. P, who had just entered the same ski run from a point below the crest, either had stopped or was traveling slowly below the crest. D1 collided with P. P sued Ds. P alleged D negligently designed and maintained its ski runs. D1 settled separately with P. On motions for summary judgment the trial judge dismissed P's claims against D for the following reasons: (1) as a matter of law, D1 was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision, (2) Utah's Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute, Utah Code Ann. 78-27-51 to -54 (Supp. 1986), bars P's claim of negligent design and maintenance, and (3) an employer does not have a duty to supervise an employee who is acting outside the scope of employment. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner