Brown V. Ski Lodge Resort: Case Study

Date: April 15, 2015
Student Name: Doresa Henderson
Assignment: Chapter 12 Thesis paragraph and Discussion Section Outline
TO: William Moffitt, Attorney at Law
RE: Eric Brown v. Ski Lodge Resort, David Doolittle, et al.
ISSUE PRESENTED:
Whether Eric Brown can argue that other skiers/snowboarders was injured on defendant’s premises. Ski Lodge Resort, its staff, members intentionally left the barrel behind, failed to caution or remove before opening the ski/snowboarding to public. Plaintiff avoids colliding with a barrel race marker that was wrapped with orange padding. Moments later was struck by another snowboarder, David Doolittle where he sustains further injuries. Plaintiff claims Ski Lodge Resort failed to caution about the

He had no plan on redeeming the free ticket under the circumstances. Ski Lodge Resort employee seems no fault with the pass since it only lists E. Brown as the holder. Plaintiff’s used his brother’s snowboard gears. His first intention was to go down Run 8 for a beginner run, which he used several times before. Due to the fog Plaintiff turned into Run 9, Black Diamond Run where he had never snowboarded down before, that was much steeper than he had experienced in the

Whereby the defendants failed to use a level of due care to all skiers and snowboarders. Background facts which can be used in a motion summary judgment based on the affirmative defense of primary assumption of risk. In cases of (Knight v. Jewett 1992) 3 Cal.app.4th 296, the court concluded that assumption is primary or secondary “Primary assumption of risk refers to instances where “there is ‘no duty’ on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk,” or [harm].pg. 309. Even though Knight case involved injuries occurring during a game of tough football, clearly from the guideline applies other than sports, but other activities involving as inherent risk of injury to voluntary participants like the plaintiff’s, where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity. [Citation]. A number of other court decisions involve snow sport. Connelly v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (1995) 39 Cal.app.4th 8 13, 45 C.R.2d 855, Van Dyke v. S.K.I. Ltd. (1998) 67 Cal.app.4th 1310, 1314, 79 C.R.2d 775.
However, In a recent case Mastro v. Patrick (2001) 93 Cal.app.4th 83, 112 C.R.2d 185, where the plaintiff a defendant at resort to ski and snowboard. When the defendant (traveling 30 to 35 mph), collided into plaintiff a skier. The court affirmed snowboarder owed no duty of due [of] care to skier; the snowboarder was not snowboarding