Survey of Ski Law in the United States
by James H. Chalat
To read cases specific to a particular state, click the state name, above.
WISCONSIN - 2006
Under Wis. Stat. Ann. § 895.525, a participant in any recreational activity, including skiing, accepts the inherent risks of which the ordinary prudent person is or should be aware; the risks so accepted reduce recovery as if it were comparative negligence under § 895.045. Participants must conduct themselves within their abilities, heed warnings, and generally remain in control so as not to harm themselves or others. Id. at § 895.525(4). Property owners or lessees opening their property to non-commercial recreational activity are absolved of any resulting liability, per § 895.52. Under § 895.482, ski patrol members are immune from liability unless they were reckless, wanton, or engaged in intentional misconduct.
Cases
In Ansani v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 588 N.W.2d 321 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998), review denied, a skier sued operator for injuries sustained when he fell and slid into timing box on coin- operated race course. The court held that the recreational activity statute, § 895.525 does not mandate that all who are injured while skiing are negligent under all circumstances as a matter of law; rather, skiers have a duty to exercise ordinary care in avoiding forseeable harms, including adherence to the enumerated conditions of § 895.525(4). Challenges to waivers of operator liability have yielded mixed results. See Yauger v. Skiing Enterprises, Inc., 557 N.W.2d 60 (Wis. 1996) and Osborn v. Cascade Mountain Inc., 2002 WL 31478724 (Wis. Ct. App.). In Yauger, a child was killed while skiing after colliding with the concrete base of a lift tower. The child's father had purchased a family season pass, the application for which had included an exculpatory clause. The Court of Appeals upheld the clause, determining that the discount received was adequate consideration for the release, and that the clause expressly contained the term "negligence." The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, reversed, holding that the exculpatory clause did not explicitly waive operator's own negligence, was not conspicuous, and was, therefore, void as against public policy.
