1. Marybeth Atkins severely broke her leg while using skis and ski bindings rented from a shop at a ski resort. The shop was owned and operated by the owners of the resort. What argument did Atkins make to the court in an effort to avoid the one-year statute of limitations?
2. The state Supreme Court stated in its opinion that “The Legislature appears to have concluded that . a short period for the commencement of skiers’ personal injury actions against ski operators . was in the public interest.” It denied recovery to a plaintiff who alleged that she was seriously injured as a result of the defendant’s negligence in fitting her with defective ski equipment at its on premises rental facility. Do you see any utilitarian aspects in the making of public policy in this instance?

O’Connor, Justice
This case presents the question whether an action by an injured skier against a ski area operator is governed by the one-year limitation of actions provision of G.L.c. 143, § 71P, where the plaintiff’s theories of recovery are negligence and breach of warranty, as well as breach of contract, in the renting of defective ski equipment.