Facts
- Justin Scott, age 12, participated in a ski-racing program at a commercial ski area owned and operated by Pacific West Mountain Resort (PWMR).
- The ski-racing lessons were provided by a privately owned business, Grayson Connor Ski School, which conducted lessons at PWMR.
- Justin’s mother, Barbara Scott, with Justin’s father’s knowledge, completed and signed the ski school’s application, listing Justin’s information and selecting ski-racing lessons.
- The application included a “hold harmless” clause stating: “For and in consideration of the instruction of skiing, I hereby hold harmless Grayson Connor, and the Grayson Connor Ski School and any instructor or chaperon from all claims arising out of the instruction of skiing or in transit to or from the ski area. I accept full responsibility for the cost of treatment for any injury suffered while taking part in the program.”
- A beginner slalom course was set near an unused tow-rope shack supported by exposed, unpadded pillars; the shack was not fenced.
- While practicing, Justin missed a slalom gate and skied off the run into the tow-rope shack; the missed gate was about 40 feet from the shack.
- Justin sustained severe head injuries.
- Justin (through his guardian ad litem) and his parents sued PWMR and the ski school, alleging negligent preparation and placement of the course too close to the shack and related safety failures.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the ski school based on the application’s exculpatory language and to PWMR based on implied primary assumption of risk; the plaintiffs appealed, and the Washington Supreme Court reviewed the consolidated appeals.
Issues
- Whether Washington public policy permits a parent to sign a preinjury release that waives a minor child’s future negligence claim against a third party (here, the ski school).
- Whether implied primary assumption of risk barred, as a matter of law on summary judgment, Justin’s negligence claim against the resort based on allegedly unsafe placement of a slalom course near an unprotected tow-rope shack.
Decision
- The Washington Supreme Court held that, as a matter of public policy, a parent lacks authority to waive a minor child’s prospective personal-injury claim for negligence through a preinjury exculpatory agreement; the ski school’s release could not bar Justin’s claim.
- The court held that summary judgment for PWMR on implied primary assumption of risk was improper because the record did not establish, as a matter of law, that Justin accepted the specific danger alleged—an allegedly unsafe course layout placing a gate about 40 feet from an unfenced, unpadded structure.
- The court reversed the summary judgment dismissals and remanded for further proceedings.
Legal Principles
- In Washington, minors’ personal-injury claims are strongly protected; parents generally may not compromise or release a child’s post-injury claim without court approval, and that policy bars parents from extinguishing a child’s claim in advance through a preinjury release.
- A preinjury release signed by a parent may be void as to the child’s negligence claims because it can deprive an injured child of a source of compensation for medical care and other losses caused by another’s negligence.
- Implied primary assumption of risk applies when a participant voluntarily engages in a sport and, for dangers that are integral to the sport, the defendant owes no duty to protect the participant from those dangers.
- Assumption of risk does not automatically defeat claims that a defendant’s conduct created an additional, avoidable danger beyond the sport’s ordinary risks; such negligence claims may remain for the trier of fact.
- On summary judgment, courts view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; where reasonable minds can differ on whether the challenged condition was a sport-related danger or a negligent added hazard, dismissal as a matter of law is improper.
Conclusion
Scott held that a parent’s preinjury “hold harmless” agreement cannot waive a minor’s future negligence claim in Washington, so the ski school could not obtain dismissal based on the application language. The court also ruled that the resort was not entitled to summary judgment on implied primary assumption of risk because the plaintiffs’ evidence, viewed favorably, allowed a factfinder to decide whether the slalom course was negligently placed too close to an unfenced tow-rope shack with exposed supports; the case was reversed and remanded for litigation on the merits.