Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort case brief

Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort case brief summary
808 P.2d 1037 (Utah 1991)

SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff skier filed suit against defendants, a resort operator and an employee, to recover damages for injuries sustained as the result of a ski accident in which the employee collided with the skier. The Third District, Salt Lake County (Utah) granted summary judgment in favor of the resort operator and the employee. The skier appealed.

OVERVIEW: The skier alleged that a jump taken by the employee, in which he collided with her, created an unreasonable hazard. The skier alleged that the employer did not take reasonable measures to eliminate the hazard, and that the evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact that should have precluded the grant of summary judgment in favor of the resort operator and the employee.

HOLDING:
The court found that the skier provided sufficient evidence that the resort operator was negligent in not supervising its employee and reversed the grant of summary judgment.

ANALYSIS:
-The court found that the resort operator was under no duty to protect its patrons from the inherent risks of skiing.
-However, because the resort operator furnished its employees with ski passes as partial compensation for employment and because the resort operator was aware that its employees took jumps at the resort, but did not take any measures to alleviate the danger, there was sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact in regard to the skier's negligent supervision claim.

RULES:
-Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, employers are held vicariously liable for the torts their employees commit when the employees are acting within the scope of their employment.
-Acts within the scope of employment are those acts which are so closely connected with what the servant is employed to do, and so fairly and reasonably incidental to it, that they may be regarded as methods, even though quite improper ones, of carrying out the objectives of the employment.
-The question of whether an employee is acting within the scope of employment is a question of fact. -The scope of employment issue must be submitted to a jury whenever reasonable minds may differ as to whether the employee was at a certain time involved wholly or partly in the performance of his employer's business or within the scope of employment.
-In situations where the activity is so clearly within or without the scope of employment that reasonable minds cannot differ, it lies within the prerogative of the trial judge to decide the issue as a matter of law.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment in favor of the resort operator and the employee and remanded the matter.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


-->