Smith v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
716 F.2d 1002 (1983)
- Written by Ross Sewell, JD
Facts
Peter Smith (plaintiff) went skiing at Seven Springs Farm, Inc. (Seven Springs) (defendant). Smith had skied for over 13 years and was an advanced-intermediate skier. At the beginning of the North Face trail, a sign displayed the international skiing symbol of a black diamond and the words “MOST DIFFICULT.” Smith saw the sign and chose to continue down the North Face anyway. Smith was aware that the headwall was icy, that skiers in front of him were having trouble, and that a series of unprotected telephone-like poles lined the headwall. Although Smith could stop, turn around, and sidestep back uphill to a gentler slope, he instead proceeded down the North Face. Seconds later, Smith fell and slid into one of the telephone-like poles and two nearby snowmaking pipes, permanently injuring his right knee. Smith sued Seven Springs for negligence, arguing that Seven Springs had a duty to warn him of the hazardous conditions on the North Face and to place padding around the telephone-like poles and snowmaking apparatus to protect him in collisions. The district court granted Seven Springs’ motion for summary judgment, relying on the Pennsylvania Skier’s Responsibility Act to hold that Smith assumed the risk of injury, which discharged Seven Springs from its duty of care. Smith appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Aldisert, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
