Ski and Snowboard Accident Lawyers

Skiing and snowboarding injuries can involve much more than a collision with another participant. Chairlifts, trail conditions, terrain parks, rental equipment, lessons, resort vehicles and surrounding facilities may all warrant investigation. Muggeo & Associates reviews ski and snowboard injury claims by identifying how an accident happened, who controlled the conditions or equipment, and which law applies. An accident does not automatically establish liability.

Skiing, Snowboarding and Winter Resort Injury Claims

Our review can address downhill skiing, snowboarding, cross-country skiing and other winter resort incidents. These activities may involve different operators, contracts, insurance policies and legal rules. Snow tubing, sledding, resort transportation and accidents in lodges or parking areas also require their own analysis rather than assuming every winter injury is governed by the same ski-safety law.

Chairlift, Gondola and Surface-Lift Accidents

Potential issues include loading and unloading, lift stops, falls, entanglement, equipment malfunction, staff instructions and maintenance. Preserve the lift name, chair or carrier number if known, incident time, witnesses and photographs. Operating logs, inspection records, maintenance history and video may help determine whether there is a supported claim against an operator, contractor or equipment manufacturer.

Trail Hazards, Signs and Resort Maintenance

An investigation may examine trail markings, closures, merge points, visibility, man-made obstacles, snowmaking equipment, grooming operations and warning signs. Natural terrain, changing snow and ice, and other inherent risks can substantially limit a claim. The question is whether a legally actionable condition or failure contributed—not simply whether the trail was challenging or a fall occurred.

Terrain Parks, Jumps and Features

Injuries involving jumps, rails, boxes and other terrain-park features can raise questions about feature design, maintenance, markings, access and the participant’s conduct. Photographs of the approach, takeoff and landing areas, feature layout and warnings can be important. Choosing to use a terrain feature may also affect the legal analysis; a serious landing injury alone does not establish fault.

Rental Equipment and Product Defects

Ski bindings, boots, skis, snowboards, helmets and other equipment may require examination when a defect, improper adjustment, maintenance problem or rental setup is suspected. Save rental paperwork, adjustment records, receipts, photographs and the equipment itself. Avoid repairing, modifying or discarding potentially relevant items before counsel can arrange appropriate preservation and examination.

Ski Lessons, Instructors and Supervision

Lesson-related injuries may involve instructor conduct, route selection, skill assessment, directions or supervision. Claims involving children require attention to the child’s age and ability, the agreed program and the circumstances. Preserve lesson bookings, releases, instructor details, group information and communications. An instructor or ski school’s responsibility depends on the facts and applicable law.

Snowmobiles, Grooming Vehicles and Resort Facilities

Collisions involving snowcats, snowmobiles or resort transportation may require a different investigation from skier-to-skier collisions. Injuries on stairs, walkways, parking areas, lifts or inside lodges may turn on where the incident occurred and who controlled the area. Preserve vehicle details, the exact location, warnings, lighting, inspection records and witness accounts.

Can Another Skier Be Responsible?

Potentially. Another skier’s speed, control, lookout, direction of travel, position uphill or downhill and conduct near a trail merge may matter. A collision does not automatically make either participant liable. Witness accounts, photographs, ski-patrol reports and video can help establish what happened. A snowboarder’s involvement also requires analysis under the applicable state’s rules.

Who Could Be a Defendant?

Depending on the evidence, potential defendants may include another skier or snowboarder; the resort owner or operating company; a lift operator, maintenance contractor or equipment manufacturer; a rental shop; a ski school or instructor; or a vehicle operator and employer. Responsibility depends on each party’s conduct, control and legal duties. The resort is not automatically responsible because the accident happened on its mountain. Insurance coverage, including any potentially applicable personal-liability policy, must be investigated rather than assumed.

Massachusetts Ski-Safety Rules and Resort Liability

Massachusetts G.L. c. 143, § 71N addresses operator duties concerning warnings, equipment, vehicles, signs and reasonably safe operations, while preserving limits for inherent skiing risks. Whether the statute applies to a particular activity or injury requires individual review.

Massachusetts G.L. c. 143, § 71O requires control of speed and course and places a collision-avoidance duty on downhill skiers toward people below them. It also recognizes inherent skiing risks and limits resort responsibility, subject to the statutory framework. Those rules require a fact-specific analysis. Other states’ standards may differ.

Resort Claims Have Distinct Deadlines

For Massachusetts claims against a ski-area operator, G.L. c. 143, § 71P sets a 90-day registered-mail notice requirement, with statutory exceptions, and a one-year filing period for covered injury actions. A claim against another skier is a separate analysis. Do not assume operator deadlines govern every defendant or that another state uses the same rules. Obtain prompt advice.

What To Save After a Ski or Snowboard Accident

Obtain medical care and contact ski patrol. Record participant and staff contact information, witness details, the exact trail, lift, terrain feature or facility location, time, visibility and conditions. Preserve the patrol report, lift pass, trail map, photographs, helmet or camera footage, rental documents and equipment. Photograph ski or snowboard damage and clothing. Keep lesson confirmations, lift details and any releases or ticket terms. Ask counsel promptly about preserving resort video, lift and maintenance logs, equipment-adjustment records and other relevant evidence.

What if the Other Skier Leaves?

Report the departure to ski patrol and, where appropriate, law enforcement. Preserve the participant’s description, lift-ticket information if known, witness accounts and video. Do not put yourself at risk attempting to pursue someone. Identification and available insurance can materially affect recovery.

New England Ski Accident Laws by State

Most New England skiers cross state lines every season. The state where the accident happened usually supplies the rules that decide the claim, and those rules differ in important ways: what counts as an inherent risk, whether a resort must receive written notice, how long you have to file, and whether a signed release or ticket waiver can be enforced. The summaries below are a starting point, not a substitute for advice on your specific facts. Last reviewed November 2026.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts ski-safety law appears in G.L. c. 143, §§ 71H–71S, described above. For covered claims against a ski-area operator, written notice must generally be sent by registered mail within 90 days, and suit must generally be filed within one year. These are among the shortest ski-claim deadlines in the country.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s ski statute, RSA chapter 225-A, treats skiers as accepting the inherent risks of the sport. For claims against a ski-area operator, RSA 225-A:25, IV requires notice to the operator by certified return-receipt mail within 90 days of the injury as a condition of suing, and requires suit within two years. The statute also limits operator liability for skiers who leave open and designated trails. New Hampshire courts have enforced clearly worded season-pass releases in some cases, including McGrath v. SNH Development, Inc. (N.H. 2009), so the exact release language matters.

Vermont

Under 12 V.S.A. § 1037, a person taking part in a sport accepts the dangers that inhere in it insofar as they are obvious and necessary. Vermont is notable for its treatment of releases: in Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd., 164 Vt. 329 (1995), the Vermont Supreme Court held that a ski area’s pre-injury release of its own negligence was void as contrary to public policy, and Spencer v. Killington, Ltd., 167 Vt. 137 (1997), applied the same reasoning to race-entry releases. Inherent-risk defenses still apply. Vermont’s general personal-injury limitations period is three years.

Maine

Under 32 M.R.S. § 15217, skiers accept the inherent risks of skiing as a matter of law, including weather, snow and ice conditions, terrain, lift towers and snowmaking or grooming equipment, and collisions with other skiers. Responsibility for a collision rests with the skiers involved, and operators are generally not liable for the ski area’s design. The statute preserves claims for negligent operation or maintenance of the ski area and for negligent design, construction, operation or maintenance of a lift. A skier involved in a collision must give a name and address to resort staff or ski patrol before leaving. Maine enforces releases that expressly refer to negligence, as in Lloyd v. Sugarloaf Mountain Corp., 2003 ME 117.

Connecticut

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-212, skiers assume the risk of specific inherent hazards: terrain variations (except those the operator caused, other than through snowmaking, grooming or rescue), bare spots, conspicuous lift towers, trees and objects outside trail boundaries, lift loading and unloading without following instructions, and collisions with other people. A collision with an on-duty resort employee skiing within the scope of employment is not treated as an inherent hazard. Related sections set operator duties (§ 29-211) and prohibited skier conduct (§ 29-213). In Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314 (2005), the Connecticut Supreme Court held a snowtubing release unenforceable as against public policy. Connecticut’s general negligence limitations period is two years.

Ski Accidents in Colorado, Utah and Other Western States

Many North Shore families ski out West, and an injury in Colorado, Utah, California or another western state is usually governed by that state’s law. Western ski statutes include damage caps, short notice periods and very different rules on waivers. Where a claim must be filed in a state in which our attorneys are not admitted, we can review the matter and work with licensed local counsel.

Colorado

Colorado’s Ski Safety Act requires suits against ski-area operators to be filed within two years (C.R.S. § 33-44-111) and caps recovery against an operator at $1,000,000 total, including no more than $250,000 for noneconomic loss, with derivative claims counted within the cap (C.R.S. § 33-44-113). In Miller v. Crested Butte, LLC, 2024 CO 30, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a release cannot bar a negligence per se claim based on violations of duties imposed by the Ski Safety Act or the Passenger Tramway Safety Act and its regulations. In September 2026, in Litterer v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., a divided court held that a snowboarder released earlier injury claims by later buying a new season pass whose terms released past claims. If you were hurt and are considering renewing a season pass or signing a new waiver, have the language reviewed first.

Utah

Utah’s Inherent Risks of Skiing Act provides that a skier may not recover from a ski-area operator for injury resulting from the inherent risks of skiing (Utah Code § 78B-4-403). In Rothstein v. Snowbird Corp., 2007 UT 96, the Utah Supreme Court held that pre-injury releases of a ski area’s own negligence are unenforceable as contrary to the public policy expressed in that Act. Claims for negligence outside the inherent risks remain possible.

California

California has no comprehensive statewide ski-safety statute. Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine from Knight v. Jewett (Cal. 1992), a co-participant is generally liable only for intentional injury or conduct so reckless that it falls totally outside the range of ordinary activity in the sport. The California Supreme Court applied that rule to a skier-to-skier collision in Cheong v. Antablin (Cal. 1997). Claims against a resort turn on whether it increased the risks beyond those inherent in the sport, and on the terms of any release.

Oregon

Under ORS 30.980, notice of a claim against a ski-area operator must be given by registered or certified mail within 180 days of the injury (or of when it was or should have been discovered), and suit must be filed within two years. In Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 356 Or. 543 (2014), the Oregon Supreme Court declined to enforce a season-pass release as to the resort’s own negligence.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington and New Mexico

Idaho: Skiers expressly assume the risk of skiing hazards, and responsibility for skier collisions rests with the individuals involved, not the operator (Idaho Code § 6-1106).
Montana: Skiers accept legal responsibility for injuries resulting from inherent risks, but the statute preserves a skier’s right to hold another skier accountable (Mont. Code Ann. § 23-2-736).
Wyoming: Participants assume the inherent risks of a recreational activity, while negligence claims against a provider remain available where the injury did not result from an inherent risk (Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-123).
Washington: Because of the inherent risks of skiing, skiers must exercise reasonable care for their own safety and are the sole judges of their ability to handle a trail (RCW 79A.45.030).
New Mexico: A skier who violates statutory skier duties cannot recover from the operator where that violation is causally related to the injury (N.M. Stat. § 24-15-13).

Injured at a Resort in Another State?

Report the accident to ski patrol before you leave the mountain, and ask how to get a copy of the incident report.
Get the names and contact information of any skier involved and of witnesses. Several states require skiers involved in a collision to identify themselves.
Notice deadlines keep running after you return home. Some states require written notice to the resort within 90 or 180 days.
Do not renew a season pass, buy a new pass or sign a new waiver for the same resort company until the terms have been reviewed.
Keep travel records, lift tickets, rental agreements and medical records from both the treating facility and your providers at home.

Frequently Asked Ski and Snowboard Injury Questions

What if another skier or snowboarder collided with me?

The circumstances and law of the state where the collision occurred may determine what obligations the participants owed each other. Preserve witness details, incident reports and photographs.

Can a resort be responsible for a lift or trail injury?

Possibly, depending on the alleged condition or conduct, duties imposed by local law and any enforceable ticket or waiver terms. The resort is not automatically responsible for every on-mountain injury.

Do ski-pass waivers bar all claims?

Not necessarily. Wording, local statutes, the type of conduct involved and enforceability must be reviewed.

Related information: personal injury claims and evidence to preserve after an injury.

Call 978-741-1177 or contact Muggeo & Associates to discuss an injury. Explore our travel and resort litigation practice and Legal Resources.

This page provides general information, not legal advice. Naming a company or location does not allege wrongdoing or identify a past client matter. Muggeo & Associates is not affiliated with the named businesses. Liability, jurisdiction, insurance and deadlines depend on the facts and governing law. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.