## Facts

- Clint Miller and companions undertook a winter hike on Humphrey’s Peak and camped at high elevation.
- A severe storm destroyed much of their shelter and gear; Miller suffered exposure and frostbite and could not descend.
- Four companions went to the Arizona Snow Bowl lodge and reported Miller’s condition and location to resort personnel, including ski patrol.
- Ski patrol began organizing a rescue that contemplated using the chairlift, but the chairlift was shut down due to dangerous storm conditions.
- The resort manager refused to restart the chairlift because of the high winds and weather.
- The companions also contacted the sheriff’s office; a sheriff’s search party found Miller the next morning.
- Miller suffered severe hypothermia and frostbite, leading to amputations of portions of his feet and fingers.
- Miller sued the resort operator, alleging it negligently, willfully, and unreasonably terminated a rescue it had undertaken.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on negligent performance of an undertaking to render rescue services.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction imposing liability for interference with the rescue efforts of others.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Arizona affirmed the judgment for Arnal Corp. and the denial of Miller’s motion for a new trial.
- The trial court properly refused the requested “negligent undertaking” instruction because Miller’s theory did not claim injury from negligent performance of a duty owed, and the proposed instruction failed to reflect a statutory limitation requiring gross negligence for volunteer rescue services.
- The trial court properly refused the requested “interference with rescue” instruction because it was framed as absolute liability and omitted any requirement of intentional or negligent interference.

## Legal Principles

- A party that gratuitously begins to render aid may discontinue the effort unless its conduct leaves the person aided in a worse position than if no aid had been undertaken.
- Where a statute limits liability for volunteer rescue services to gross negligence, jury instructions on negligent rescue must incorporate that heightened fault standard.
- An “interference with rescue” theory requires a fault element (intentional or negligent interference); an instruction imposing liability without fault misstates the law.
- A new trial is not warranted when a requested instruction is legally incorrect or does not fit the plaintiff’s tried theory of causation.

## Conclusion

The court left the defense verdict intact because the plaintiff’s proposed rescue-related instructions did not accurately state governing law, including statutory limits on rescue liability and the requirement of fault for interference, and because the record did not justify instructing the jury on negligent performance of a rescue undertaking as the asserted cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.


Miller v. Arnal Corp., 632 P.2d 987 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981)