## Facts

- Margaret Clover was injured when she was struck by Chris Zulliger, a Snowbird employee, while both were skiing at Snowbird Ski Resort.
- Zulliger worked as a chef at Snowbird’s Plaza Restaurant; the head chef (his father) supervised both the Plaza and the Mid-Gad Restaurant located mid-mountain.
- Snowbird encouraged employees to ski to facilitate travel to and from work and provided season ski passes as part of compensation.
- On the day of the accident, before his scheduled shift at the Plaza, Zulliger skied with another employee.
- A restaurant manager instructed Zulliger to stop at the Mid-Gad Restaurant during skiing to check kitchen operations; Zulliger complied and spent time inspecting and speaking with personnel.
- After the Mid-Gad stop, Zulliger continued skiing additional runs and later skied a route commonly used by employees traveling toward the Plaza.
- During the final run, Zulliger took a high-speed “blind” jump over a crest that blocked visibility of skiers below and collided with Clover, who was on the slope beneath the crest.
- Clover alleged Snowbird knew skiers regularly took the blind jump and that the feature posed a hazard to skiers below.
- Clover sued Snowbird for (1) respondeat superior liability for Zulliger’s negligence, (2) negligent design/maintenance of the run, and (3) negligent supervision; Clover later settled with Zulliger and pursued claims against Snowbird.
- The district court granted Snowbird summary judgment on all claims, relying on lack of scope of employment, Utah’s Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute, and absence of a duty to supervise; Clover appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed on whether Zulliger was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the collision for purposes of respondeat superior.
2. Whether Utah’s Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute barred a claim that the resort negligently designed or maintained a run by permitting a dangerous blind jump.
3. Whether an employer may be directly liable for negligent supervision even if the employee is found to have acted outside the scope of employment, and whether summary judgment was proper on that claim.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for Snowbird and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that scope of employment turned on disputed facts and reasonable inferences; the issue should be decided by a jury rather than on summary judgment.
- The court held the Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute did not provide categorical immunity where the alleged hazard might be avoidable through ordinary care; factual disputes precluded summary judgment.
- The court held negligent supervision is a separate, direct-liability theory and may proceed even if respondeat superior ultimately fails; disputed facts made summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, courts must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and must deny summary judgment where material facts are disputed.
- Scope of employment is generally a fact question where reasonable minds could differ on whether conduct was of the kind employed to perform, occurred within employment time/space limits, and was motivated at least in part by serving the employer.
- Utah’s Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute allocates certain assumed risks to skiers but does not immunize a ski area operator from liability for failure to use ordinary care to reduce or eliminate hazards that are reasonably avoidable.
- Negligent supervision is independent of respondeat superior; an employer may be directly liable for failing to exercise reasonable care in supervising employees’ conduct even when that conduct is outside the scope of employment.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that disputed facts required a trial on whether the employee’s skiing fell within the scope of employment, whether the resort’s alleged failure to address a known blind-jump hazard could constitute negligence outside the statute’s assumed-risk protection, and whether Snowbird could be directly liable for negligent supervision.


Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037 (Utah 1991)