Legal Opinion
Connelly v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 29, 1995No. C018483PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DAVIS, Acting P. J.
In this personal injury action, plaintiff Patrick Connelly (Connelly) sued defendant Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (Mammoth) after colliding with a ski lift tower. In granting summary judgment for Mammoth, the trial court rejected Connelly’s claim that Mammoth improperly padded the tower; instead, the court found the collision with the tower to be an obvious, avoidable and inherent risk for which Mammoth owed no duty under the primary assumption of risk doctrine defined in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696]. We shall affirm the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Knight v. JewettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Ford v. GouinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Ferrari v. Grand Canyon DoriesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Jambazian v. BordenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co.California Supreme Court · 1997
- Solis v. Kirkwood Resort Co.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Lackner v. NorthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Staten v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.