Actions and Suits in Particular Cases

ORS 30.975
Skiers assume certain risks


In accordance with ORS 31.600 (Contributory negligence not bar to recovery) and notwithstanding ORS 31.620 (Doctrines of last clear chance and implied assumption of risk abolished) (2), an individual who engages in the sport of skiing, alpine or nordic, accepts and assumes the inherent risks of skiing insofar as they are reasonably obvious, expected or necessary. [1979 c.665 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Where plaintiff did not argue to trial court that her injuries were caused by combination of inherent risk of skiing and operator negligence which would have made doctrine of comparative fault applicable, trial court did not err in instructing jury that if plaintiff's injury was caused by inherent risk of skiing, plaintiff could not recover. Jessup v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 101 Or App 670, 792 P2d 1232 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

[Former] ORS 18.470 allows jury to consider comparative negligence of skier's own or another's negligence as well as inherent risk of skiing. Nolan v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 115 Or App 27, 836 P2d 770 (1992), aff'd 317 Or 328, 856 P2d 305 (1993)

Collision between skier and ski instructor employed by ski area operator was not collision with another skier that skier accepts as inherent risk of skiing. Nolan v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 317 Or 328, 856 P2d 305 (1993)

Assumption of risk defense is available only to ski area operators. Stiles v. Freemotion, Inc., 185 Or App 393, 59 P3d 548 (2002), Sup Ct review denied


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021