Legal Opinion
Maddocks v. Whitcomb
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided May 2, 2006PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlexander, J.
[¶ 1] Rhonda Maddocks appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Superi- or Court (Waldo County, Mills, J.) in favor of William Whitcomb. She contends that the court erroneously determined that (1) the ski area immunity provided by 32 M.R.S. § 15217 (2005) protects entities that operate snow tubing areas, and (2) Whitcomb’s failure to instruct her about proper snow tubing procedures did not represent the negligent operation of a ski *267area pursuant to 32 M.R.S § 15217(8)(A). We disagree and affirm the judgment.
I. CASE HISTORY
[¶ 2] On February 9, 2003, Rhonda Mad-docks and her family visited…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mastriano v. BlyerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001
- In Re Melanie S.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1998
- University of Maine Foundation v. Fleet Bank of MaineSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2003
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. MontagnaSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2005
- Francis v. Dana-CummingsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2005
3Cited by6 opinions
- Montany v. University of New EnglandCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2017
- Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp. v. RohrmanWyoming Supreme Court · 2006
- Maravell v. R.J. Grondin & SonsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2007
- Quirion v. GerouxSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2008
- Francis v. Dana-CummingsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2008
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.