| Law Reporter | Products Liability Law Reporter | Professional Negligence Law Reporter Publish
your case | Other publications

Court Documents by Topic
Snow Skiing
Documents can be downloaded from the Exchange.
For security reasons, the AAJ Exchange and its products
are available only to AAJ Regular, Life, Sustaining,
and Presidents Club members.
Documents $50
Document Sets $95
-
Bayer v. Crested Butte Mt. Resort, Inc.,
41 ATLA L. Rep. 224 (Aug. 1998) (plaintiffs
appellate briefs in a case holding that Colorados
Tramway Act and Ski Safety Act do not preempt ski
lift operators common law duty of highest
care). No. LR3229.
-
Crews v. Seven Springs Mt. Resort, 48 ATLA
L. Rep. 270 (Oct. 2005) (plaintiff’s complaint,
motions for judgment on the pleadings and reply
to defendant’s answer, superior court brief, reply
to defendant’s motion for new matter, answer in
opposition to defendant’s motion to reargue, and
supreme court brief; and defendant’s superior court
brief and the superior court opinion, in a case
holding the risk of collision with an intoxicated
minor is not an inherent risk of skiing). No. LR4165.
-
Hansen v. Sunday River Skiway Corp., 41
ATLA L. Rep. 180 (June 1998) (plaintiffs trial
brief and opposition to summary judgment in a case
alleging failure to appropriately mark an icy patch
on a slope). No. LR3217.
-
Hoar v. Great E. Resort Corp., 42 ATLA L.
Rep. 36 (Feb. 1999) (plaintiffs opposition
to defendants summary judgment motion, defendants
motion for judgment n.o.v. and plaintiffs
response, and the parties appellate briefs
in a case alleging a ski resort failed to warn skiers
about the presence of a dangerous drop-off). No.
LR3348.
-
Pilling v. Snowridge, Inc., 37 ATLA L. Rep.
62 (Mar. 1994) (the parties motions for and
against summary judgment and the courts opinion
and order on those motions in a case alleging a
ski resort employee had negligently driven a snowmobile).
No. LR1973.
- Westlye v. Look Sports, Inc., 37 ATLA L.
Rep. 26 (Feb. 1994) (the parties appellate briefs
in a case holding that a product lessor could be strictly
liable even though the lessee had accepted the equipment
as is and expressly assumed the risk of
injury from use). No. LR1946.
|