## Facts

- Peter Smith, an experienced skier with over thirteen years of skiing who described himself as an “advanced intermediate,” skied at Seven Springs Ski Resort for the first time on February 2, 1980.
- Smith chose the “North Face” trail, which featured two gentle sections separated by a steep headwall.
- At the trail entrance, a black-diamond symbol and the words “MOST DIFFICULT” warned skiers of the trail’s difficulty.
- Before attempting the headwall, Smith observed that it was icy, saw other skiers having difficulty, and noticed unprotected telephone-like poles and snowmaking pipes running along the center of the headwall.
- Smith nonetheless proceeded; he had the option to stop, turn around, and side-step uphill to reach a gentler route.
- Smith attempted a maneuver toward the center of the slope, fell, lost his skis, and slid into a pole and nearby snowmaking pipes, sustaining serious and permanent knee injuries.
- Smith sued Seven Springs for negligence, alleging failure to warn of hazardous icy conditions and failure to pad the poles and snowmaking equipment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Seven Springs, holding that Smith assumed the risk under Pennsylvania’s Skier’s Responsibility Act and thus Seven Springs owed no duty as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Pennsylvania’s Skier’s Responsibility Act and assumption-of-risk doctrine, an experienced skier who knowingly proceeds down a clearly marked “most difficult” slope with obvious icy conditions and visible unpadded snowmaking equipment assumes the risk as a matter of law.
2. Whether that assumption of risk negates the ski area’s duty of care, thereby barring negligence claims for failure to warn and failure to pad fixed equipment.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Seven Springs.
- The court held that Smith assumed the risk of the injury-producing conditions as a matter of law.
- Because the assumption of risk operated as a duty-limiting doctrine in this setting, Seven Springs owed no duty to protect Smith from the particular risks he knowingly and voluntarily confronted.
- On the undisputed record, no reasonable jury could find that Smith lacked subjective awareness of the conditions or that his choice to ski the headwall was involuntary.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania’s Skier’s Responsibility Act, certain dangers associated with downhill skiing are treated as inherent risks of the sport for which participants bear primary responsibility.
- In the skiing context, assumption of risk may function as primary assumption of risk: when the plaintiff subjectively understands and voluntarily confronts a known risk, the doctrine negates or limits the defendant’s duty and can bar recovery.
- The relevant inquiry is subjective: whether the plaintiff actually knew of, appreciated, and chose to encounter the specific risk that caused the injury.
- Summary judgment is proper where the material facts are undisputed and those facts compel the conclusion that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepted the risk.

## Conclusion

The court held that an experienced skier who saw and appreciated the steepness, iciness, and visible unpadded snowmaking equipment on a clearly marked “most difficult” trail assumed the risk of losing control and colliding with the equipment; that assumption of risk eliminated the resort’s duty and barred the skier’s negligence claims.


Smith v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc., 716 F.2d 1002 (3d Cir. 1983)