Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Apostolou
Colorado Supreme Court
866 P.2d 1384 (1994)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
John Apostolou (plaintiff) worked for Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation (Highlands) (defendant) as a part-time ski instructor. In January of 1990, Highlands sought ski instructors with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) qualifications for Highlands’ ski patrol. Part-time ski-patrol members were not paid wages, but they each received a ski-free identification card from Highlands. As an instructor, Apostolou already had a ski-free card, so he negotiated to receive unlimited daily ski passes for his girlfriend. Apostolou would not have agreed to join the ski patrol if Highlands had not agreed to give him the passes. In February of 1990, Apostolou injured his knee while on ski-patrol duty and could not continue working as an instructor or ski-patrol member. Apostolou sought workers’-compensation benefits, but Highlands contested Apostolou’s claim, noting that Colorado’s legislature had recently amended the state workers’-compensation statute to exclude volunteer ski-patrol members from the statutory definition of employees entitled to benefits. Highlands argued that Apostolou was a volunteer and not an employee at the time of his injury because Apostolou was not paid wages for his ski-patrol work. An administrative-law judge (ALJ) concluded that Apostolou was an employee and awarded benefits, and an industrial claim appeals panel and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Highlands appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lohr, J.)
Dissent (Vollack, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.