Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov questioned whether the Miller decision, which specifically addressed the Ski Safety Act, could be expanded to cover snowmobiles, noting that the snowmobile safety statute lacks a provision for a private right of action, unlike the laws involved in Miller. “Is that a significant distinction?” Lipinsky asked Ongert, who countered by asserting that the two statutes are “interrelated” and that the Miller ruling did not limit its holding to just the two statutes in that case.
Judge Pax L. Moultrie similarly suggested that expanding the ruling to the snowmobile statute could be a policy decision better left to the legislature, emphasizing that the Miller court did not address whether the snowmobile safety statute could allow such claims. Ongert argued that the snowmobile statute was the type of law that could allow for the waiver to be pierced, but Moultrie reiterated that the matter may be best left to lawmakers.
The case centers on an incident in which Litterer, snowboarding on an open ski trail, was struck by a snowmobile operated by McClure. Litterer’s legal team contends that the waivers he signed in connection with his Epic Pass do not bar claims of negligence under the snowmobile safety statute, as negligence claims are specifically allowed under the Ski Safety Act.
