PAUL AND BEATRICE METZ took their 11-year-old daughter Christine on a weekend skiing trip; they stayed at the St. Stratton ski resort. The St. Stratton owned and maintained four ski trails and a ski lift on its property.

One morning, Mr. and Mrs. Metz were having coffee in the ski lodge while their daughter was riding the ski lift to the top of the mountain. On the way up, the car containing Christine Metz and one other skier jumped off its cable guide and plunged 300 feet down the mountain. As a result of the fall, Christine was permanently paralyzed from the neck down.

The Metzs filed a lawsuit against the resort. Their attorney discovered that the car’s connections to the cable were checked once a year
by a maintenance staff person unfamiliar with the intricacies of ski cable cars. The manufacturer of the cable car recommended weekly inspections, performed by a specially trained service technician.

The ski resort’s corporate owners maintained that all skiers assumed risk when skiing, that the manufacturer’s recommendation was simply a recommendation, and that their own inspection program demonstrated they had indeed exercised reasonable care. In addition, they maintained that Christine’s paralysis was the result of an unfortunate accident
for which the cable car’s manufacturer, not the resort, should be held responsible.

* Did the resort exercise reasonable care?

* What level of negligence, if any, was present? Ordinary negligence?Gross negligence?

* Are the resort’s defenses valid ones? why or why not?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 the resort didnt exercise reasonable care Cars connection to the cable were checked just once a ye... View the full answer