## Facts

- Breanne Bennett, a 16-year-old with limited skiing experience, went skiing at Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc. during a late-night session on February 7, 1998.
- While skiing on an intermediate slope, Bennett fell at a snow feature described as a bump/ridge/jump/ramp/mogul and was thrown forward, suffering severe injuries, including alleged brain damage and reduced earning capacity.
- The parties agreed the feature was not intentionally created by Hidden Valley; it formed naturally from skier and snowboarder traffic moving snow across the slope.
- Bennett sued Hidden Valley in federal court under Missouri negligence theories, alleging negligent design, maintenance, staffing, supervision, access control based on ability, failure to warn, and failure to guard or cushion hazards (including alleged obstructions such as trees and jumps).
- The district court dismissed Bennett’s punitive damages claim before trial.
- Hidden Valley denied negligence and asserted assumption of risk, emphasizing risks inherent in skiing.

## Issues

1. Under Missouri law, does implied primary assumption of risk relieve a ski-area operator of a duty to protect against hazards deemed inherent in skiing even if the skier lacked actual, subjective knowledge of the specific hazard?
2. Did the district court commit reversible error in instructing the jury on implied primary assumption of risk and inherent risks of skiing?
3. Did the district court abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings (including admission of a videotape of the ski area and evidence of Bennett’s drug use) or in denying a mistrial?
4. Was Bennett entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on alleged insufficiency of evidence supporting the defense verdict?

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Hidden Valley entered on the jury’s verdict.
- The court held the jury instructions, read as a whole, fairly and adequately submitted the issues and accurately reflected Missouri law on inherent risks and implied primary assumption of risk.
- The court rejected the argument that implied primary assumption of risk required proof of Bennett’s actual knowledge of the specific risk posed by the snow feature.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the ski-area videotape and drug-use evidence and found no basis for mistrial or reversal.
- The court held sufficient evidence supported the verdict and the district court properly denied judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- In Missouri recreational-sports cases, implied primary assumption of risk functions as a duty limitation: for risks inherent in the sport, the operator owes no duty to protect participants from those hazards.
- Implied primary assumption of risk in this setting does not require the defendant to prove the participant’s actual, subjective knowledge of the specific risk; voluntary participation implies consent to ordinary risks of the activity.
- Whether a condition is an inherent risk of skiing (for which no duty is owed) versus a hazard created or worsened by negligent design, maintenance, or operation is a fact question that may properly be submitted to the jury.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over evidentiary rulings; reversal requires a showing of prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.
- A jury verdict will be upheld if supported by legally sufficient evidence allowing a reasonable factfinder to find for the prevailing party.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense verdict for a ski-area operator, holding that Missouri law permits a jury to treat naturally formed slope irregularities as inherent skiing risks that limit duty through implied primary assumption of risk, without requiring proof that the injured skier actually knew of the specific hazard.


Bennett v. Hidden Valley Golf & Ski, Inc., 318 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2003)