## Facts

- Stephanie Donovan was injured in a skiing collision on the “First Time” beginner run at Park City Mountain Resort.
- S.S., a nine-year-old beginner, skied slowly and cautiously in a snowplow (“wedge”) position at about five miles per hour.
- Dwight Sutton, S.S.’s father, skied backwards in front of her to monitor her while they descended together.
- S.S. suddenly lost control, came out of the wedge, tried to reestablish it, but instead straightened, accelerated, passed her father, and collided with Donovan from behind.
- Donovan had stopped slightly right of center on the run to take a photo; she heard S.S. shout “look out!” but had no time to avoid the impact.
- Donovan sued S.S. for negligence and sued Sutton for negligent supervision.
- The district court granted summary judgment for both defendants; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a nine-year-old beginner skier was negligent as a matter of law for losing control on a beginner slope and colliding with another skier.
2. Whether the father negligently supervised his child under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316 when he skied with her and monitored her on a beginner run.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for S.S. and Sutton.
- The court held that the applicable duty while skiing is reasonable care under the circumstances.
- Applying the child standard of care, the court concluded no reasonable jury could find S.S. breached her duty based on an accidental loss of control by a cautious novice on a beginner run.
- The court concluded the negligent supervision claim failed because the record did not support that Sutton knew or should have known of a necessity and opportunity to control S.S. to prevent the type of harm that occurred.

## Legal Principles

- Skiers owe a duty to exercise reasonable care while skiing.
- A child’s conduct is measured against children of the same age, experience, and intelligence under similar circumstances.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316, parental liability for negligent supervision requires evidence that the parent knew or should have known of the need and opportunity to control the child to prevent foreseeable harm, and that the child posed an unreasonable risk of the type of injury suffered.
- Summary judgment is proper where undisputed facts would not allow a reasonable jury to find breach of duty or foreseeability sufficient to support negligence or negligent supervision.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the defendants because the collision resulted from an inadvertent loss of control by a cautious nine-year-old beginner on a novice slope, and the father’s close, active monitoring did not present evidence of a failure to address a foreseeable, unreasonable risk requiring additional parental control.


Donovan v. Sutton, 498 P.3d 382 (Utah 2021)