Essay 2 -- Yile Xu

Potential civil causes of action 1 – Premises liability

Sam’s claim:

Sam can use Happy Trails for premises liability.

Under negligence law, a property owner is responsible for any damages arising out of an
injury on that person or entity's property. Owners that occupy a property must make a
reasonable effort to maintain a safe environment for visitors to it. Failure to keep the property
safe for visitors results in "premises liability." The elements of a cause of action for “premises
liability brought by an invitee are as follows
1) the Plaintiff was an invitee;
2) the defendant was a possessor of the premises;
3) a condition on the premises posed an unreasonable risk of harm;
4) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the danger;
5) the defendant breached its duty of ordinary care by both
a. failing to adequately warn the plaintiff of the condition, and
b. failing to make the condition reasonably safe; and
6) The defendant’s breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.

Here,
1) Sam bought the lift tickets and went into Happy Trails Resort as an invitee;
2) Defendant Happy Trails was the possessor of Happy Trails Resort;
3) The left side of the slope had been groomed to the left edge and the snow formed a
berm running along the left edge. Beyond that groomed area and the berm, the area
was ungroomed and dropped off. No signs to warn the danger. The dangerous
property, inadequate maintenance, and lack of reminder constitute unreasonable
risk of harm;
4) As the Owner of a Ski Resort, defendant knew or reasonably the danger;
5) Defendant failed to put any signs to warn Sam the conditions of the left side of the
slope; Defendant failed to maintain the left slope to make the condition reasonably
safe;
6) Sam’s injury was reasonably foreseeable by defendant. Sam got injury whiling he
was skiing down the left side of the slope. Defendant’s breach Is the primary cause
of Sam’s injury.

Therefore, Sam can use Happy trail for premises liability.

Happy Trails’ defense:

Happy Trails might argue that Sam was trespassing and did not have the permission to
the area where he got injured. Under negligence torts rule, businesses and property owners

1
owe a far lower duty of care to trespassers. While trespassers are not necessarily prohibited
from filing a premises liability claim, it is far more difficult for a trespasser to prevail in this type
of case. Here, Defendant might argue the area Sam went into was ungroomed and was not
public to the customers. However, Happy Trails failed to put any sign or obstruction to warn
what this area was. Therefore, most likely Defendant failed this defense.

Happy Trails may use the waiver as their defense as well. On the ticket, there was a
waiver, which says in purchasing and using this ticket, purchase or user agrees to accept the
risks inherent in skiing, and agrees not to sue Happy Trails Resort. Under torts law, waivers
intended to protect a business against liability for gross negligence, reckless conduct,
willful/wanton conduct, or intentional acts are not enforceable. Here, similarly, premises
liability cannot be released by the waiver. Therefore, most likely Defendant failed this defense.

Happy Trails might also argue that Defendant had no knowledge of the safety hazard.
Under negligence torts law, lack of actual or constructive knowledge of the underlying safety
hazard can be the defense against negligence claims. However, ignorance is not a valid legal
defense. If a business or property owner should have known about the safety issue on their
premises, they can still be held liable. Here, as a professional business owner, Happy Trails
should have known the safety issues on their premises. Therefore, most likely Defendant failed
this defense.

Happy Trails can use comparative negligence as defense as well. Under negligence torts
law, Defendants may try to escape or reduce their liability by pushing some or all the blame for
an accident back onto the plaintiff. Here, Defendant might argue that Sam as an expert skier, it
was Sam’s own fault to catch the edge and lose balance.

Potential civil causes of action 2 – Ordinary Negligence/ Negligence per se/ Statutory
Negligence

Sam’s claim:
Sam can use Happy Trails for Ordinary Negligence/ Negligence per se/ Statutory
Negligence.
Under negligence law, in ordinary negligence cases, Plaintiff will have to show that the
defendant's conduct fell the applicable standard of care and that these actions were the actual
and proximate cause of his or her harm. A standard of care is the extent to which a reasonable
person would have been prudent in the same set of circumstances that caused the injury.
However, in many states, when a defendant violates a safety statute, regulation, or municipal
ordinance, and someone else is hurt as a result, an inference of negligence is raised.
Here, the local ordinance requiring ski areas to main a sign system but Happy Trailed
failed to put any signs or markers.
Therefore, Sam can use Happy Trails for Ordinary Negligence/ Negligence per se/
Statutory Negligence.

2
Happy Trails’ defense:
Defendant's incapacity made it reasonable for him to violate the local ordinance because Happy
Trails were running out of Signs or other markers but Happy Trails already made the order;
Defendant neither knew nor should have known of the occasion for compliance because Happy
Trails was not able to learn it right after a heavy snow;
Defendant was unable to comply even using reasonable diligence or care because Happy Trails
were not able to detect that area was ungroomed or dangerous

Potential civil causes of action 3 – Gross Negligence

Sam’s claim:

Sam can use Happy Trails for Gross Negligence.

Under negligence law, the elements of Gross Negligence are

1) Duty.
2) Breach of duty
3) Harm
4) Causation
5) The harm was a foreseeable consequence of failing to uphold the duty.

Here, Defendant owes Sam a duty to provide a safe ski area and Sam was entitled with
Notice. Defendant failed to provide a safe place or notice. Defendant’s conduct directly cause
Sam’s injury. Defendant failed to Sam can claim that the ski area was so dangerous that the
consequence is obviously foreseeable.

Therefore, Defendant might be liable for Gross Negligence too.

Happy Trails’ defense:

Happy Trails can argue that their negligence is not a conscious and voluntary disregard
of the need to use reasonable care. Failing to provide a safe ski area and failing to place
reminder were a mere failure to exercise reasonable care, not extreme failure.
.