## Facts

- Robert G. Dalury bought a midweek season pass to ski at a commercial ski area operated by S-K-I, Ltd. and Killington, Ltd.
- To obtain and use the pass, Dalury signed a written “Release From Liability and Conditions of Use,” and also signed a photo ID card containing the same exculpatory language.
- The release broadly purported to absolve the ski area and its agents from liability for personal injury or property damage resulting from the ski area’s negligence and conditions or operations on the premises.
- While skiing, Dalury sustained serious injuries after colliding with a metal pole that was part of a ski lift-line control maze.
- Dalury and his wife sued, alleging negligent design, construction, and placement of the pole.

## Issues

1. Whether an exculpatory agreement required by a commercial ski area and purporting to release the operator from liability for its own negligence in maintaining premises is enforceable or void as against public policy.
2. Whether prior precedent enforcing a release in a professional skiing competition controls the enforceability of a release imposed on members of the general public engaged in recreational skiing at a commercial resort.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held that exculpatory agreements required of skiers at a commercial ski area, releasing the operator from all liability for negligence, are void as contrary to public policy.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on plaintiffs’ negligence claims.

## Legal Principles

- Exculpatory agreements are not automatically invalid, but they are unenforceable when they violate public policy under a contextual, totality-of-the-circumstances analysis informed by societal expectations.
- A business that holds its premises open to the public owes invitees a duty of reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe; broad, standardized waivers that negate this duty may be invalid where public interests are implicated.
- Where an operator invites large numbers of the general public onto commercial recreational premises for a fee, a legitimate public interest in safety and deterrence supports refusing enforcement of blanket negligence releases.
- A waiver is particularly suspect when customers lack meaningful control over hazards created by the operator’s design, construction, or maintenance decisions, and the operator is best positioned to reduce those risks.
- A release enforced in a professional sports competition context does not necessarily govern releases imposed on ordinary recreational patrons in a premises-liability setting.

## Conclusion

The court held that a commercial ski area cannot use a broad, required liability waiver to shield itself from negligence claims by recreational skiers because such waivers conflict with public policy favoring reasonably safe premises and preserving tort law’s deterrent function.


Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd., 164 Vt. 329, 670 A.2d 795 (Vt. 1995)