Some doors are locked with a click. Others are left ajar with just enough space to slip through — and that's essentially the legal gray zone at the heart of a case now roaring back to life. The Seventh Circuit has handed a resort visitor a second chance to pursue personal injury claims against Mont du Lac Snowsports LLC and its insurer, ruling that even though he may have technically trespassed on a shuttered tube ride, there's enough evidence suggesting the resort played with fire by letting him use it anyway.

The Ruling That Reversed Course

In an opinion filed Tuesday, a three-judge panel undid an earlier order that had shut down Eric Stupak's lawsuit against Mont du Lac and Nova Casualty Co. The panel's reasoning centered on one key detail: an allegation that a staff member's words implied the tubes were fine to use — enough, the judges said, to keep the case alive rather than let it die on summary judgment.

How the Day Unfolded

According to court records, Stupak and two friends made their way to the Wisconsin resort in June 2022. After knocking out a round of disc golf, the trio decided to test their luck on the tube slides. One friend approached front desk manager Devon Schultz to ask permission — and got an answer that would later become the crux of the entire case: "I'm not going to say anything."

Here's where the scene gets murkier. The slide was officially closed, yet the tubes themselves hadn't been packed away. A "Ride Closed" sign sat nearby, but it wasn't positioned to actually block the platform at the top. Even the inflatable bumpers lining the slide's edges had been deflated — like a fence with the gate wide open.

The Fall That Sparked the Fight

Stupak's friend rode down without a hitch. Stupak wasn't so lucky — he tumbled off the side, injuring his spine, ribs and hip. Two years later, he filed suit. The district court sided with the defendants and granted summary judgment, a decision Stupak promptly appealed.

Trespasser, Yes — But Was the Resort Reckless?

The appeals court agreed on one point: under state law, Stupak was technically a trespasser, since the resort never extended him express invitation or permission to use the slide. That status alone lowers the duty of care the resort owed him.

But the panel drew a sharp line between "no permission" and "no recklessness." While Schultz's statement didn't amount to an invitation, the judges found it still carried an implicit message — that using the closed slides probably wouldn't cause any real trouble.

Reading Between the Lines

"In other words, it would be reasonable to interpret Schultz's statement to suggest that using the closed slides would be fine as long as no one tattled," the panel wrote. They added that while the comment wasn't welcoming enough to grant Stupak invitee status, it could still be seen as reckless when paired with the slide's compromised condition — sign misplaced, bumpers deflated, tubes left in plain sight.

The Broken Brakes Analogy

To drive the point home, the panel reached for an unusual comparison: imagine a car owner mid-repair, having just disconnected the brakes, who tells someone eager to take the car for a spin, "I'm not going to stop you." No explicit green light was given — but a jury, the panel suggested, could still find that statement reckless, given the owner's knowledge of the hidden danger and his tacit nod toward using it anyway.

Voices From Both Sides

Taylor Brandt Cunningham of Casey Jones Law Firm and Bolt Law Firm, representing Stupak, welcomed the reversal Wednesday: "We are pleased with the Seventh Circuit's decision to reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and appreciate the court's careful consideration of the case. Mr. Stupak's trial team looks forward to presenting his case to a jury."

Amanda M. Cialkowski of Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, representing Mont du Lac and Nova Casualty, struck a more measured tone: "While we disagree with the court of appeals that there is a question of fact as to Mont du Lac's conduct, we look forward to returning to the district court and welcome its anticipated dismissal of the claims based on the alternative grounds outlined by the court of appeals."

What's Left Unresolved

Notably, the panel acknowledged — but didn't rule on — Mont du Lac's arguments that Stupak had assumed the inherent risks of tubing, and that the resort's conduct wasn't the direct cause of his injuries. Those arguments now head back to the district court, which can weigh them as alternative grounds for potentially ending the case again.

U.S. Circuit Judges David Hamilton, John Z. Lee and Rebecca Taibleson made up the panel deciding the case's fate.