Montana Ski driver announced that the lack of fence of the state's Supreme Court led to a dangerous fall

.

In 2019, Mark Mullee broke his pelvis while skiing at Whitefish Mountain Resort on Big Mountain in the north of Montana. Mullee, an advanced skier, said he was driving on a trail that the resort as a slow zone and a “green” run, in which children and people with disabilities go to the ski to the parking lot to call up his phone, which he accidentally left behind.

When Mullee got out of the trail through a tunnel, he caught an edge that carried it over a cliff and a rocky embankment – an area that was typically guarded by a fabric fence. Mullee sued the ski area for negligence and suspected not to maintain the fence. The resort, on the other hand, argued that the fence was present at the time of the accident and that mulle was simply plowed through it at high speed because it is not intended to “catch” skiers.

The District Court of Flathead County agreed to the resort and found that it had no legal obligation to maintain the fence. According to the law on Montana's law, the risks of skiing are responsible for the ski driver, as well as avoiding injuries when skiing.

In the appeal procedure, Mullee argued that the fence was not present on the day of the accident and that itself was a danger.

Justice Ingrid Gustafson asked if the resort is liable for every steep delivery in his ski area.

“There are several decreases in the mountains across the country that do not set up fences, and if you set up a small rope, are you on the hook?” Gustafson asked Ian Gillespie, a lawyer of the DRIGGS law firm based in Missoula, Bills & Day, represented the Mullee.

Gillespie argued that the resort is responsible for determining the risk with which its skiers are faced.

“The obviousness of the risk or the assumption of a risk for a skier depends on where you are on the mountain, right? And so is a green path here, ”said Gillespie.

Gustafson pushed back and asked why a resort would not have to protect against dangers on a more difficult path than a simpler one.

“A skier takes a different risk of a higher degree of difficulty levels, so we have a skier here and frankly more on a green Diamond Trail, because they don't expect so difficult terrain,” said Gillespie.

Justice Cory Swanson noticed that Mullee looked a competent skier with decades of experience, who knew the danger in this area and asked whether the argument was that the resort was duty to warn him or the duty to catch him.

Gillespie replied that Mullee didn't know how great the danger in the area was

“When the fence actually runs every day, except that my customer fell down, right? Well, that would be a different fact of other days, ”said Gillespie.

Justice Jim Shea noticed that the ski area according to Gillespies logic was held from marking dangers if this recognition opened the door to remain liable for accidents.

Gillespie countered that it is the responsibility of the resort to analyze the site before opening the public.

Mikel Moore, a lawyer who represents the ski area, argued that the question of duty was the only one to address the court.

“The question of the legal obligation is whether the Whitefish Mountain Resort may have to answer Mr. Mullee, which gets into a stream bed outside of this ski liner,” said Moore.

For the beginning, there has never been an accident in this place until Mullee in 2019, the lawyer argued. Placing a fence on the edge of the path has not created the resort, which underlined the Montana Skier Responsibility Act.

“It is an action that recognizes the reality of a voluntary leisure activities on a mountain through common sense,” said Moore. “There is literally countless risks. And they cannot all be reduced. ”

Moore also argued that you cannot choose what the risk of resort has to protect because they are too abundant.

“My argument is that there is no obligation to have a fence in this place,” said Moore. “Because this is one of the countless dangers on the mountain that are fully recognized by legislation in order to recognize a public policy that will ever get it.”

During the refutation, Gillespie argued that the presence of the fence implies that the ski area must protect against the danger.

Swanson pushed back Gillespies argument.

“If you want to switch off all risks in a ski hill, you simply have the ski hill closed. This is the point or attractiveness, it is this element of danger, ”said Swanson.

Gillespie argued that at the end of a simple path near the parking lot, no skier in the end of a simple path.

The Supreme Court did not state when it would rule.