## Facts

- Henry L. Hardin, an out-of-state skier, was injured while skiing at Snowshoe Resort in West Virginia, operated by Ski Venture, Inc.
- On February 24, 1990, Hardin skied on the “Grab Hammer” trail near operating snowmaking equipment, lost control, and collided with a tree, allegedly causing quadriplegia.
- Hardin sued in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging negligence in trail design, construction, and maintenance, and in operation and marking of snowmaking equipment.
- Hardin’s theory centered on (1) making excessively wet snow that obscured vision by sticking to goggles, (2) aiming a snow gun uphill so it blew into oncoming skiers’ faces, and (3) leaving inadequate room for skiers to avoid the snow spray, allegedly contrary to resort policy.
- Ski Venture denied negligence and asserted assumption of risk under the West Virginia Skiing Responsibility Act, which allocates duties between ski operators and skiers and recognizes inherent risks of skiing.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court committed reversible error by refusing to give Hardin’s requested “theory of the case” instructions describing wet snow and uphill-directed snow guns as the basis of negligence.
2. Whether the jury charge, taken as a whole, was confusing or unfairly slanted toward Ski Venture due to extensive instruction on the West Virginia Skiing Responsibility Act and assumption of risk.
3. What standard governs appellate review of challenged jury instructions in a civil negligence trial.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment entered on a jury verdict for Ski Venture.
- The court held that the district court did not err by declining to give Hardin’s requested theory-specific instructions because the charge, considered in its entirety, adequately conveyed the substance of Hardin’s negligence claims.
- The court rejected the argument that the overall charge was confusing or imbalanced, concluding it accurately stated the governing law and fairly submitted the case to the jury.
- A dissent would have ordered a new trial on the ground that Hardin’s principal theory was not fairly presented without a specific instruction embodying it.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review evaluates jury instructions as a whole, not by isolated phrases or omissions.
- District courts have broad discretion over the form and wording of jury instructions.
- Reversal is not warranted where the charge, taken together, accurately states the law, adequately frames the issues for the jury, and is not misleading, even if it does not use a party’s preferred language or emphasize a party’s evidentiary theory.
- Where a statutory scheme is central to the parties’ positions, instructing the jury on that scheme is proper so long as the instruction remains accurate and balanced.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed a defense verdict in a skiing-injury negligence case, holding that the trial court’s instructions—though not tracking the plaintiff’s requested theory-specific language—were legally correct and fair when read as a whole, and therefore did not justify a new trial.


Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 50 F.3d 1291 (4th Cir. 1995)