It is a law question, however, I cannot find a law on a subject, so I posted it as an operation management tag

The First 8 pages is the case then the questions is the objective page at the end.

Poather As of: Fintriary 5, 2601200AMZ Gifford v. Vail Resorts, Inc. Unised States Court of Appesk for tha Tenth Circuit June 14, 2002, Flod Nors. 011155 \& 011191 Reporter 97 Fod. Apoo 486;2002 L.8. App. LEXIS 119014 wbncss, instruc5ons, conditions, tamain, warring, SANDRA GIFFORD. PVintit - Appelant - Cross - seasan Appelee. VAN, RFSQRTS, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant - Appelee - Cross-Appellant. Case Summary Notice: [n-1] FULLES DF THE TENTH CIFCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATIOW TO ProceduralPosture UNPUELISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE FUAES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF Appellank mother brought a wrongry death suit against APPEALS FOR THIS CIFCUUT. appellee ski ressarf and aleged viclation of the Caloraso Ski Safety Act, Cocip. Bien. Siot, 63344101 es seen, A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Calprado found in favar of the cesiont. The mother apposied. The coseat cross-appesled from the denis of Subsoquent Histary: Motion deried by Giftord . Val to motion for judgment as a matier of law and the Resarts, inc, 154 L. Ed. 2d692,123s. Ct. 985, 2003 docision ta parmit tha mother's axpert withess bo sostify. U.S. LEXOS 760 (U.S. 2003) US Supreme Court sersoreri deried by Ginhord v. Vail Rosarts. 2003 US. LFXIS 2099 ULS. Anr. 21. 20000 Dverview Prier History: (D. Colorado). [D.C. No. 90.B53 ). The mother's son died after he fol inta a notural gully at the resort In her scit, the mother alleged that thes rusart was nosligont por se under tha Colorado Ski bocause the guly consithuted a "dangor area" which should have been marked with a danger sign. A jary Oisposition: Affirmed. Crosshippeal dismissed. found that the son's accident was the result of the inherert. dangers and risks at sking and entered juidgment in faver of the rescre On appedi. the mother daimed that the jury instructions were erroneds bocause thery did not instruct the jury to consider Core Terms whether the masort violated the act. The appelate court found that because the guly where the accidark sking, inherently dangerous, district pourt, risks, Ski occurred was open for sking, and ik was natural terrain, Bafaty Act, guly, slo area, prajasicial, skisrs, instruct a the only statulory marking issue was whother the resort jury, integred, snow, sport, courfs decision, expert had a duty to mark the gully with a danger sign under 37 Fed. Appr. 488, "486; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11801. "1 Page 2 of g Coubs Rey, 5tar, 9 39.44-107i2lidl. The jurys finding that the soris accident was the result of the intherent. dangers and risis of siving. was equivalent of a Cil Procedure >... > Standards of Revew > Plain detererinetion that the guly where the accident scciared Error > Generel Oosrvisw was nol a darger ares that required a daryer sign under 63244,102z2N. Thus; the emor in the jury Evidence > Admksibilty > Procedural instructions was not prejudicial. Matere ? Rulings on Evidence Cil Procedure > ... > Jury Trials > Jury Findecticena in General Ouerview Civ Procedure ? ... ? Jury Triaks ? Jury Qutcame histructions > Objections The jidgment of the district court was affirmed. The skj resort's cross-appeal was denied as moot. Civi Procedure > Appesks > Standerts of Review > General Owervew Criminal Law \& Procedure > Standards of Revierw > Plin Emor > Burdens of Proot LexisNexisue Headnotes Criminal Law \& Procedure >... > Standards of Rerwise s ploin Emor > Defindion of Plain Error Civil Procedure > > dury. Trids > jary HNa2 Standards of Roview, Plain Error Instructions > General Oweniew: Wrile an appellarf's falure to raise instructional emors Criminal Law 5 Procedure 2 . > Standands of at trial canstitules a waiusr undor Fnd. R. Cik. P. 5t, it is Review >. Flain Error > Defrition of Plan Emor Cirsuit's neneral practice to teview such errors on apposl under a plain error standard of revies that has Civil Procedure >> Stendents of bean modfied for chil casos. The party daiming auch Review > Harmless a lrvited Errors s General dain error has the heavy burcen of demonstratirej Ousruien fundsmental iniustice. Civil Procedure >... > Standards of Rhoviow > Hamless \& I rived Ernors ? Harmhss Emor Rule Civt Procedure >. Jury Trials > Jury hatructions > General Duarviow Chil Procedure > s Standerds of Rerriew > Plain Emor s General Overview Torts > Wrangful Death & Surrival Actiona > Ganeral Quarvinw Criminal Law \& Procedure > ... Y Standards of Review > De Navo Reriew > > Jury histructions Transportation Low > Prhrats Vahic|os o Sjads 8 Peeighes. When an appellank. faled to specficaly raise Torts > ... > Proof > Vialatians of Law > General instructional errors at torly, the appelant is not entided to relief on append unless the instrucsons are patently HNald Jury Trieds, Jury Instructiens plsirly erronecus and prefudicial. A hamless emor analysis is applcable to review chalkenges to jury. Under the Colorado Ske Safety Act, Cotb. Ribi. Stal instructions in civi asees. using a ski area for the purpose of shding downhil on a sled. Colo. Rovistar. 5.33.44 - fusigl. 37 Fed. Appr. 486, "486; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11601, 1 sking. Cab fey 5 tal, s sij-14-107izivo. Ski ares operalors are not required to post darger signs in areas Civl Procedure >.. Jury Trids > Jury that present ihherent dangers and risks of sking. Col? Instucsions > Cerseral Overvew Torts > Nodigence > General Overviow Chil Procedure > Thals > Jury Trials > Jury Tonts > ... > Elamsents > Duty > Coneral Overview Delberations Tarts > ... > Proof > Vialatians of Law > General Torts > _ Proof > Vidationa of L aw > Genonl Overview Overiew Torts > Wrengful Death \& Survivil Torts > - > Proof > Violations of Law > Statules Actione General Overvew Torts > Wrongfil Death a Survival HW61 Elarments, Duty Actions > Genera Orectierw Under the Coloraco ski Safety Acc, Cath. Asw Stat \& 93-44-101 at sea, in addifon to danger aress, a ski area operator has a duty to mark oortah manmado While the Colorado ski Salety Act, Cabio. Boe. Stat, 8 chiects and any traik or slopes that have been dosed to operator for irury resulting from amy of the intherent dangers and risks of sking. Cobbe Hock Stat. \& 33.44. 112, the statutary provision defiring inherent dangars Torts >... Proof > Viohations of Law > Generd and ribks of sking specifically exchudes from the Overview defintion the neglgence of a sk ares operator as set prowides that a ski area operstor's violstion of ary requirement under the Cobondo Ski Saloty Act, Cale HiNJ1 Dill Proot, Violstions of Law any person constiotes negfigence. Acplying thicee the The detaled listing of dangers and risks in celio. Rev provisions, the Unised Stotes Court of Appeals for the Sta 533.44.10333.5 does nat fareclose an inquily Tenth Ciout conduded that a ski ane operalar's conceming whether, based on the soocifis facts in an neglgence, which is establated by a stawtory viobsion individusl case. paricular dangers and risks are imegral of the Colorado Sk Safety Act, Colle. Rev Sta. S.33.44 ports of sking. 103 at sia which causes injury to a skier, is not an inherent danger or riak af sking. Civ Procodure >> Standarda of Review > Plain Enror > General Oorview Torts > - P Proof > Viclations of Lew > General Orenview Criminal Law \& Procedure >> Standads of Review >. Pln Error > Defintion of Flain Error Torts > Wronglt Death 8 Survivil Actions > General Overviem Criminal Law \& Procedure > ..4 > Reviewabily > Prebervation for Review > Falure to Object 38-44-10t at sert, does not define the term "danger area," it axpressly provides that danger areas do not "When are appelant fals to object to ariasue in a districa indude anas gresorring inherent dangors and risks of court, an spoelste court may only reverse if the distinct 37. Fed. Appr. 486, "s86; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11801, 1 Page 4 af 8 courty decision was p9lemly painly arranecus and ['487] ORDER ANO JUDGMENT " prejudicial. Atter examining the briels and appelate record, this pand has dotermined unarimously that aral argument Civil Procedure > Appeds > Standsds of wouls not materiaEy ["2] assist the determination of Review > Abuse of Discretion these appesks. See Fed. R. App P. St(a)i2): toun Cir B. 34 fili. The coses are therelore ordered submined Criminal Law \& without oral argument. Procedure >> Reeniewablisy > Walier > Actrissio In this diversity case. Dlainff-eppellere Sandra elfford: n of Evidence apposing pro se, appeds a jury verdict and judgment? Criminal Law S Procedume > standards of entered in favor of defendarl-appelse Vaif Resarts: Reviow > Abuse of Disentian > Censeal Overview We. (Val) on her negligence chaims for she wongful deshe of her san. Vair has filed s cross-appesl from the HNgT. Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion dstrict pourt's derial of Yoils motion for judgment as a admit evidence for anews a datrict court's decision to decision to permit My. Giffortfs expert wirness wo leslify standsro, a trial court's decision will not be disturbed apped under 28 . 45.8.1202. We attim ['43a] the unless the appelate court has a definite and firm fudgment in favor of Yeil and dismiss the cross-appeal camvetion that the trial court has made a dear encor of as moot. judgmem of exceeded the bounds of permisaide chaices I. in the circumstances. Christopher Gifford was M3. Giffordf twenty-three year old son. On January 11, 1997, Mr. Gifford, who was an expert skiker and a Vain season poss holker, was sking an Morning Site Ridge in the Back Bowk at the Counsel: For SANCRA GIFFORD, Plainbff - Appelant Yeil ski gres in Yeil Colorado. Oner tree foet of new Giffard Eagle Poin. OR. inclaaing seventeen inches of new snow that maring. MV. Gilford fell [33] in desp snow ather sking inte or For yak pesORTS. INC., Detendant-Appeliee (01- across a natura gulty located noss the bottom of For YAIL BESORTS, INC., Defendant - Appeliee (01- M Morning Side Ridge. He was unable to extricase himsel 1156), Defondars - Appellant (D1-1191): Jere K. Smith, from the snow and diod of asphydation dee to Peler W. Rietz, Foble \& Smin, Dalon, CO. sufficerison. The gully. where Mr. Gifford's acoident occurred is localed within the boundaries of the Vail ski area, and Judges: Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, The srea is designaled as a "most dificult sejing areas: Circur Judges. At the time of Mr. Giffond's accident, a pertion of the guly was marked with two or tree bamboo poles, but the gully was open to skiers and it was not marked with arry signs. Opinion by: Mary Bock Briscoe M4. Gilford fled a wrongat death suh egainst Vair in Opinion "This order and ydigment is not biding precosine, except collibral estoppel. The count genecally distsvors the cersion in may te oflod under the terms and condBons of 10anCK,8B. 35. federel destrict paunt, aleging that Yair wae negligent in crueres the jury vendict and autgment. HN1FT Ms. failing to properly mark and warn skiers of the gully Giffond fsiled to spocifically raise the instructional errors Where the aciident ocourred, and that Yoils negligence at trial. Consequently, she is not enbtlod to relief on Was the cause of her san'a death. Ms. Giford ake appod uness the hatnactions are "patanty plairly "dangor area" which should have been marked with a 1989. Nonetheless, because we hold that the allogod "Danger" sign in acoardance with Coto. Risy, 5tar. 5.33. arrors were not prejudicid ta Ma. GiVford the standard 44-107:Yika. A jury found brat Mr. Ciffart's actident of review is not determinative in this case. and we would was the resul of one or more of the inherent dangers reach the same result applging a de novo standard of judgmeen ["+] in favor of Vaw under the Sik Safety Ast, whle jury inatructiona are reviewed do novo so make any chim against or cecorer from ary ski area law, rerersal is seceroprisle pnly if thee was prejuditiol operabor far injury resulting fram any of the inherent error"): Morruson Knustsen Ca. y. Fhumun's fund ins. dangers and ricks of sking. 3 . II. hampess encer andysis is applostele to fevisw. challenges to jury instructjons ['+ b] in chil cases). M8. Gikand elsims the district court emed in: (1) was the resut of an. Ihherent danger and risk of sking whle skedding on a ski run at Copper Mountain, and the without first dobermining whother Vail viopated the Sk accident cocurred when the sked colided with a snawregarding the irherent dangers and nsks of sking under was tled agarat Copper Mountan on behalf of the the Act; (3) instrucsing the jury that her expert witness chilaren, aleging their iniuries were the resuli of Copper Was nok an expert and potd not offer expoet teatimory, Alounbin's negligonce "in faling lo equip the snowand (4) alowing inlo evidence a redease and wsiver of grooming mschine with a visible light, in viclation of I abilty that was imvelid under Colorado bw. section 33-44-10e(1) of the Ski Safety Act, and faling to slace panspicsous notice that snow-groeming A. Aleged Doering Error equpment was maintsiring the ski tral, in violstion of On the same day Ms. Giffond fled her opering brief in Colarado Ski Safety Act, holding that the district court's omithedl. and My. Giffand has fated to estableh such injuetice jury inatnactiana wsre [*-5] not in accordance with the in this oase. ease. 1 and that Dowing focuines than [4BD] an whother the subject accident was the vos.l of an itherent darngur and naks al aking the find thing right but of the bosc" Trial Tr., Yol. It at 344-45, 348. Although Ms. Gimfored falad to 'Alhough Ms. Gitfande tature to csise the alvied Doping elsborale on her objection the cbection ambatty came dose that emor. we dedine to Ind a waver here given the Dosivy. Further, in fis bried on cross-appesi s-d aniower briel Aot and the fact that cur opinion in Doeving was lled on the as a restlt of Ms. Gillocefs apped of jury instruction No. 10. trial constbules a waker under if is this. a clain error sisndard of reriew that has boen modifed for div "any person using a ski ares ... for fre purpose of sliding 37 Fed. Appr. 486, 4869;2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11801. 7 Page a di a b returned s verdict in favor of Copper Mountain, finding agree with Mis. Giffond thal this was arror under that the accibent resuliod from an inherent danger and Doering, we wil not reverse the district court because risk of sking. iof ati1203. The jury did not reach the the ercor was nok profudicial. issue of whether Copper Mountain violsted the Ski Safety Act, however, because it was instrucled to cesse Mls. Gifford aleged that Vail vidaled the Ski Safety Act its delbershons if it detorminod that the skoding bocause the gully ahere her son diod constituted a accident was the resut of en inherent danger and figk of "danger area" that shou.jd have been markad in skirig. at 1207,1219 . accordance with Caib. Reer. Stat $3j44107i2ida. . 5 ['+8] On appeal, the pleinaffs in Doering alleged that "danger area," it expresely ["10] pervides that "danger the jury instructions were not in accordance with the Skj areas do nol include areas presenting inherent dongers of the Act, we agreed with the plantiffs and held that it Was prejudicis, and therefore reversibls, emor to not that ski area operators are not recuired to past danger instruct the jury "that \{1 is muse first detenwine whether signs in aneds that present irtherem dangers and risks of there was a stalulory volstion by Copper Mountain ...., skingi. Thus, unlke Ocering, the aleged statulory and (2) a violation of the Siki Safety Act by Copper viabain in this case is inextricably linked bo the inherent Mountain pausing a skior ["490] injury cannot danger and risk iseue, and the queston of whether Yai] earstitule an inherem danger of risk of aking." If af violabed the Adt is whally depervent on that issue. 1213. 4 ["*11] The fury specifically found that Mr. Giftonofs [rag]. The district court in this csse committed the same accibent was the resul of one of more of the inherent, emor as the district court in Doeving. Here, the district dargers and cisks of sking. Sob R. Dos. No. 110 at 1. court instructed the jury to first datemine whether Mr. We wil trest the jury's finding as the equivalent of a Giffardy accibent was the fegul of ane or more of the deserminason that the gully where the accidert occumed interent dangers and risks of sking. The jury was was not a danger area nepiaining a danger sign under 3. instructed that it should cosse is delberabians and not 3344107i2l ald. Aocordingly, the Dooriog trror wes not resch the issue of whether Vail violabed the Sw Sarocy prejudical, and it is not grounds for a new trial, Act if it answered that question in the affirmative. Sev B. Jury Inerucion No. 10 R. Doc. No. 109 at 1617 and Doc. No. 110 at 1 - Trisl Tr., YoL. III at 39091. The jary desormined that Mr. In instruction No. 10, the district court instrucled the jury Gilfards aceident was the reaul of ane or more of the as foliows: inherent dangers and risks of aking and returned a verdict in favor of Ygil without considering whether Ygid ['491] You nuat firat denermine whether Plaintilfs neglgence daim is barred becsuse of one of the hherent dangers and risks of eking as detined ty the Colarado Siv Saloty Aact. "Tow tasis of cur helaing in Doaning was twoblebl. First hiNdI H whie the 868 Bafory tos bars a skier's chim against a slif Not al dangers that may be encounlered on the ski aves operaior Tor injury resuling from any of the inherent dengers and rives of sking." oob. Biv. Stocs 38 :44-112, "Thut statutory provision defing inherent dangers and risks of sking' envificaly exidudica frum the debinilion the regligeros in Appling these bwo providions. we concluded that "a she the sooldent coourned was open for shing. see Tral Tr., Yol. II volation of the Act which causes injury so a skier, is not an making lesue in this case was whether Vall had a dutr to intherem denger o risk of sking." is mesk the guily with is "Dainger" aign urder 37 Fed. Appr. 488, -491: 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11801. +11 Page 7 af B sking. However, the statute tefines the inherent dangers that mgy be enccountered an the ski slepes. . dengers and risks of aking to be those dangers are interent and integral bo the sport, and this or condibons which are an integral part of the sport determination ['+14] cannot always be made as a of sking, induding changing weather consitiore: mater of law. " id af . Sar. now conditions as they exist or may chrsige, buch as loe, hard pock, powder, pscked powder, wind Granso does not support the limiatians progased hy pack, corn, cuust, slush, cut-up snow, and machins- Ats. Ciffard. Inslegd. Graver simply stands Sor the condinons such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, and risks in Colo. Blo. Sind. 5.33.4410313.51 does not stumps, streambods, and trees, ar other natural foredose an inquiry conseming whether, besed an the ocjects, and colisions with such nataral dejecss: specfic facts in an individual ease, particular dangers impact with litt lowers, signs. posts, fonces or and risks are 7integral parts of sking. Soe Goayon. 4ng enclosures, hydrants, water ppes, other man-made R Zd ar 519 . Although the court in Grawsi cited Clows stuctures and their components; variations in ss support for tris proposition, sow id feting Clowe gies of slope design, snowmaking or grooming relance on Clower. Consequenty, we reject Ms. operations, induding but not Imilod to roads and Gigfonde cdaim that the court in Graven akes adopled catwales of ather berrain modcgtons; collaiona. the portions of Clover ['492] where the court staled with other skiers; and the falure of skiers to ski that a sld area operator's duty of care depends on within ther own ablises.7) whethar a specific hacard could have bean eliminated by using ondinary esen or on whether the specilic risk As. Giflond objected at trial to instruction. No. 10, 1992] (rejocting argument that Graven's citation to angung that the detrict cout should have further Clowar[" [5] was meant to signily wholesede adoption intherent and "inbegral" which she claime the Colarade Supreme Court adopted in Grawan ga9 P.2d 51t. See In accordance with Grawer, the district court found that, frisl Tr., Vol. Il at 326-2s. According to Ms. Giffora, the bssed en the evidence preserled iny Ms. Eaffond, and imitationa are: [1) that an injary caused by an despite the fact that the accident ocoured within a innecessary hazerd that a ski gres operator vould have skiable area, there was a factual issue for the fury so Elminaled by using ordinary care is not an "inherert'. resilve conceming whether the suifipct guly conatilused fanger and ["-13] risk of sking; and (2) that the danger an intherent dsoor and risk ol skjing. See R.. Doc. No. and riak are "integnal" to the spert of sking only if 6 s at 10-11; Trial Tr., Vol. II at 313-14. In [it16] essonatyy foreseesble. Id, see arso Apli."s Opering Br. Instuction No. 10, the court apecificaly instructed the 12-13. These Imbations are dertved from the Utah fury. [1) that the Ski Salety Act "defines the inherech Supreme Court dectsian in Gimer y Smgwbind Ski dongers and risks of sking to be thcese dangers or Ressarf, sio8 P.24 1087, 1047. Mitafi 1901\} \{eoristring conditons which are intogral to the sport of sking, ". soo Jtahis "Therent Pisk of Sking Ststule'\}. which the R., Doc. No. 109 at 16 , and (2) that "not all dangers thal Colarado Suprere Court dited in Grawn. may be encountered on the ski slopes are inherent and n Graven, the court held there was an issue for trisl integral to the sport of sking," soo if. Accordindy, the sancorring whother a ravine that was localed in an area adjacent to a ski nun of VaW cansbituled as wariation in sieepness or terrant. that was part of the 7inherent 'We do not mesn to sugpest, however, frat the concept of 518-20. The couft was carelul to note, howeever, thel it deiermination which a vial court must make as to whother a changes loosbed within a shi run will dways fall within and risk of sking as a mater of bw. hstead, we are only he statutary definition of 'variabions in steepnese or holing that once it is delermined that the inherenk danger errain' that are 'irherent dangers gnd risks of sking." and rok iasue should go to a jury, the jury should nost be H. at 519m (emphasis added). To the contrary, "not al instucted that its desermination of the iseue is depesident on the issicupt of forisieatibly. that insruction No. 10 mas in acxongance with Colorado Be bounds of pencissible chcice in the circumstancas." lasw. If a 98861 \{quotation omitted. C. Ms. Ciffara \& Fxpert Wipress The district court did not abuse is discretion in admitting The district court quelifed Ms. Giffonds expert witness, the sessen psss spplisation. First, the district court Fichard Penniman, to gho opinions under fod E. Ewd. specfically instructed the jury there was no issue 702. S6\% Trial Tr., Vol, II at 225-28, but the conut concerning a waher of any c|Fims, and that th was not to profibiled Ms. Giffend from referting to Mr. Perriman weet the acelicatian as any sort of waiver. Sev Trial Tr. as an "expert or to his opinions as "expert oprians," Vol. I at 516. Second, the applicatian contains the Ski soe id. A 230. M5. Giffard cantends this is reversile Safety Act's statulary waming regarding a sker's error beceuse the cistrict toset corratructipely exduded assumption of the inherent dangers and risks of siking Mr. Pennimaris testimany and thereby mislod the jury. which Colorado iki area operalors ane neguined to post We disagrec. at ski areas and set forth on all ift tickets under [ +i19] Cobo fick Stat 5324410Zi81, and Mr. Giffond HNI F Ms. Glfford faled in cbjoct at trial to the district acknowkalged that he had read the waming when has pourt's prohibiton against ising the terms "oxpert" and signed the application. See Exhioit E to Apli."s Eatibit. "exper epinions." See iu. Thus, we mey enly reverse if Ust. Athough Mr. Gifford's knowledge of the stakunory the ['+17] district court's decsion was "polenty plainly waming was not ne/evant to Vaifs |i=bilty inder the ski 1054. comparative fault. Morscover, the admission of the statutory waming did not unfaidy peejueice Ms. GMJTond After the district court qualfied Mr. Penniman to ghe in any way since it marely meiterated the terms of the Ski opinions under Fod 8 . Fivid. To2, it specfically Safely Act. instructed the jury that "peopla ahe by knewedge, skil, experience, trasing or education hare become expert in The judgmert of the district court is AFFIFWED, and the some fold may state ther apirions an matters in that erose-sppesl is DISNISSED as mook. field and may also stabe the reasora for thir apinions." Tria Tr. Yal II at 226 (empersais added. The court then Entered for the Court permitted Mr. Penriman to testy regarding the opinions. Mary leck Uriscoe he had formed in this case based on his ITresigatian of the gecident and ris ganeral eceperience as a ski- Circuit Jasge accident investigstor. See id at 230-15. Corsequently. the jury was sdequately advised as to both the nature and subatance of Mr. Penniman's tesimeny, and the district courfs refussl to allow Ms. Giffond to refer to sts. Penniman as an expert witness was not plainly erroneous or prejucicial. D. Sessan Pass Application Ms. Giffond clams the cistrict coun umed by admining into evidance, aver her objection, a copy of Mr. Gifford's sosson [-493] pass applcation because the applicalion sontained a release and [*-18] waiver of labilty that was irrald under Colarado Ire. See Trial Tr., Vol. I at 115-16; Exhibit E to Aplt.'s Exthiot List. HNg Y We neviow the districk courfa deciaion to sdrit the becsion 9938 application foe an abuse of dibcretion. See biniston y. Smun k Wapher Renants. Ing. 275 E 3d 965.968 itab. Ci. 2901. Under this standard. "[a] trial eourt's decision wil not be diskubed uress fthic Court hss. a definite and frim convetion that the [triel] court has made a clear error of judgment or ewceeded. TOn Sepiember 20, 2005, Yay 1ked a moson to supplament the reczord with Iwa videobapes. Vair: mosion is grantios. Objective: Your task is to read, analyze and summarize the court ruling attached in the Assignment folder. Your Assignment must follow the structure and the instructions as outlined below: 1. Introduction/Opening: Identify the key problems and issues in the case study. Formulate and indude a statement, summarizing the outcome of your analysis in 23 sentences. 2. The Facts: Briefly explain what transpired between the parties involved, before the case was brought to court. 3. The Issues: Identify in a concise way the legal issues to be resolved by this particular court. Issues may include matters of fact or matters of law. 4. The Court's Decision and the reasoning Supporting the Decision: Report the Court's actual decision and summarize the reasons supporting it. s. Conclusion: Do you agree with the court? Why