Case Title: Vuich v. Great Eastern Resort Corp.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 092249

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2011-01-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Mims, JJ., and Russell 
and Lacy, S.JJ. 
 
JEANNE VUICH 
 
v.  Record No. 092249 
 
 
OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    ELIZABETH B. LACY 
GREAT EASTERN RESORT 
 
 
    JANUARY 13, 2011 
CORPORATION, ET AL. 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 
Edward L. Hogshire, Judge 
 
In this interlocutory appeal filed pursuant to Code 
§ 8.01-670.1, the sole issue before us is whether the trial 
court correctly held that a snow tubing ride offered to the 
public was not an amusement device subject to regulation under 
the Virginia Amusement Device Regulations (“VADR”), 13 VAC 
§ 5-31-10, et seq. 
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 
The facts relevant to this appeal are not in dispute.  
Great Eastern Resort Management, Inc. owns and operates a snow 
tubing park on a mountainside in the Massanutten Resort.  The 
snow tubing park, called the Peaked Mountain Express, is a 
steeply inclined slope, contoured, graded and groomed to 
create an undulating slope with chute-like lanes to guide the 
riders’ descent down the slope.  The slope is covered by 
natural snow or man-made snow shot from snow cannons located 
on the slope and served by underground water lines.  The 
riders stand on a conveyor belt, which takes them to the top 
of the slope.  The riders then descend the slope on 
specialized inflated rubber donut-style tubes provided by the 
ride attendants.  The riders do not control their path while 
descending the slope but are guided by the chute-like lanes.  
Rubber mats are placed in the chute-like lanes in a run-out 
area to slow and stop the riders at the bottom of the slope.  
A blue wall made of stadium padding is located at the end of 
the run.  In 2005, the slope elevation of the snow tubing park 
was reconstructed and the park expanded by adding 
approximately five chute-like lanes. 
On January 27, 2006, Jeanne Vuich went to the snow tubing 
park and rode down the slope on a tube.  Vuich’s tube slid 
onto the run-out area at the end of the chute-like lane but 
the tube did not stop and she hit the blue wall located at the 
end of the run-out area, sustaining serious spinal injuries.  
Vuich filed a complaint against Great Eastern Resort 
Management, Inc., Great Eastern Resort Corporation, and The 
Resorts Companies, Inc. (collectively “Great Eastern”), 
seeking compensatory and punitive damages. 
Vuich asserted that her injuries resulted from negligent 
design and operation of the snow tubing ride.  Vuich, in a 
motion to increase her ad damnum, further asserted that the 
snow tubing ride was subject to the provisions of the VADR 
 
2
relating to gravity rides.1  Vuich alleged that her injuries 
resulted from Great Eastern’s failure to comply with the 
regulations adopted relating to the design and construction of 
gravity rides.  In response, Great Eastern filed a motion for 
partial summary judgment and for a declaration that the VADR 
did not apply to the operation of the snow tubing ride. 
Following further briefing and oral argument, the circuit 
court determined that the general provisions contained in Part 
I of the VADR refer to standards and regulations applicable to 
“amusement devices” and, therefore, a ride must qualify as an 
amusement device before it is subject to the VADR.  Applying 
the definition of “amusement device” contained in the VADR2 – 
“(i) a device or structure open to the public by which persons 
are conveyed or moved in an unusual manner for diversion and 
(ii) passenger tramways” – 13 VAC § 5-31-20(A), the court 
determined that the snow tubing ride was not an amusement 
device because “a device or structure . . . that typically 
would be a building, a structure that is manufactured and is 
not a slope.”  Concluding that the VADR did not apply to the 
                     
1 The VADR defines a “[g]ravity ride” as “a ride that is 
installed on an inclined surface, which depends on gravity for 
its operation to convey a passenger from the top of the 
incline to the bottom, and which conveys a passenger in or on 
a carrier tube, bag, bathing suit, or clothes.”  13 VAC § 5-
31-20(A). 
2 The VADR was amended in 2008 but those amendments did 
not alter the provisions at issue in this appeal. 
 
3
snow tubing park, the circuit court entered an order granting 
Great Eastern’s motion for partial summary judgment.  
Vuich filed a petition for certification of an 
interlocutory appeal pursuant to Code § 8.01-670.1.  The 
circuit court entered an order acknowledging that there was 
“substantial ground for difference of opinion regarding the 
application of the [VADR] to the facts of this case,” that 
“this issue appears to be one of first impression,” and that 
determination of the issue presented in the certification 
“will be dispositive of a material aspect” of the pending 
proceeding.  The order also recited that the circuit court and 
the parties agreed that seeking the interlocutory appeal was 
in the parties’ best interest.  We granted Vuich’s 
interlocutory appeal and the sole issue before us in this 
appeal is whether the snow tubing ride operated by Great 
Eastern at the Massanutten Resort is an “amusement device” 
under the VADR.3 
DISCUSSION 
                     
3 In the circuit court and the pleadings filed in this 
Court, Vuich argued that a snow tubing ride that meets the 
definition of a “gravity ride” is subject to the provisions of 
the VADR pertaining to gravity rides regardless of whether 
that ride also qualifies as an “amusement device” as defined 
by the VADR.  Vuich abandoned this argument during oral 
argument before this Court and thus the circuit court’s ruling 
has become the law of the case here.  Covel v. Town of Vienna, 
280 Va. 151, 163, 694 S.E.2d 609, 616 (2010). 
 
4
 
The circuit court concluded that the snow tubing park was 
not a “device or structure” and therefore could not qualify as 
an amusement device under the VADR.  In making its decision, 
the circuit court did not reference any specific definition of 
“structure” or ”device,” stating only that an amusement device 
“typically would be a building, a structure that is 
manufactured and is not a slope.”  The circuit court went on 
to say that the “tramway or the passenger conveyer or the stop 
at the bottom” would not “convert this slope into an amusement 
device.”  The facts relating to this issue were not in dispute 
and the issue was resolved by the entry of a partial summary 
judgment.  Under these circumstances, we review the circuit 
court’s judgment de novo.  Schlegel v. Bank of America, 271 
Va. 542, 549, 628 S.E.2d 362, 365-66 (2006).  
Regulation of amusement devices is authorized by Code 
§ 36-98.3.  That section delegates the regulatory authority to 
the Board of Housing and Community Development (“Board”).  The 
definition of “amusement device” in subsection A of Code § 36-
98.3 states:  
(i) a device or structure open to the public by 
which persons are conveyed or moved in an unusual 
manner for diversion and (ii) passenger tramways. 
 
This Code section does not further define “device or 
structure;” however, the definitions contained in the Uniform 
 
5
Statewide Building Code, Code § 36-97, apply to Code § 36-
98.3.  Code § 36-97 defines “structure” but the definition is 
not definitive or helpful in this case as it specifically 
identifies “amusement devices” as “structures” within the 
definition itself.4 
 
The Board promulgated the VADR establishing various 
requirements applicable to amusement devices.  In 
promulgating the VADR, the Board adopted the definition of 
“amusement device” contained in Code § 36-98.3 and, like the 
Code section, did not further define “structure” or “device” 
and, consistent with the enabling legislation, incorporated 
the definitions contained in the Uniform Statewide Building 
Code, “unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.”  See 
                     
4 Code § 36-97 provides that  
 
“Structure” means an assembly of materials 
forming a construction for occupancy or use 
including stadiums, gospel and circus tents, 
reviewing stands, platforms, stagings, 
observation towers, radio towers, water tanks, 
storage tanks (underground and aboveground), 
trestles, piers, wharves, swimming pools, 
amusement devices, storage bins, and other 
structures of this general nature but excluding 
water wells.  The word “structure” shall be 
construed as though followed by the words “or 
part or parts thereof” unless the context clearly 
requires a different meaning.  “Structure” shall 
not include roadway tunnels and bridges owned by 
the Department of Transportation, which shall be 
governed by construction and design standards 
approved by the Commonwealth Transportation 
Board.  
 
6
13 VAC § 5-31-20(A), (B).  In regulating amusement devices, 
the Board did, however, adopt specific regulations for such 
activities or offerings as bungee jumping, 13 VAC § 5-31-220, 
et seq., gravity rides, 13 VAC § 5-31-180, concession go-
karts, 13 VAC § 5-31-190, inflatable amusement devices, 13 
VAC § 5-31-200, and artificial climbing walls, 13 VAC § 5-31-
210.  The “structure,” indeed the method of “conveyance” or 
“movement” of riders, associated with these activities, which 
the Board regulates as “amusement devices,” indicates that 
the Board applied the definition of “amusement devices” 
broadly. 
In this appeal Vuich argues, as she did in the circuit 
court, that the snow tubing ride meets the definition of 
“amusement device” because the ride, taken as a whole, 
involved the construction of the conveyer system that 
transported the riders to the top of the slope, reconstruction 
of the slope to enhance the ride, formation and expansion of 
undulating chute-like lanes, and erection of a blue wall made 
of stadium padding, all of which “conveyed or moved” the 
riders “in an unusual manner for diversion.”  
Great Eastern responds that the snow tubing park is not 
an amusement device under the VADR because it is not a 
“structure.” According to Great Eastern, common usage of the 
term “would suggest that an overlay of snow on a mountainside 
 
7
is not a structure.”  Great Eastern also asserts that the snow 
tubing slope does not convey or move people: “it merely 
provides them with an opportunity to move themselves with the 
help of gravity.”  Finally, Great Eastern asserts that the 
identification of “passenger tramway” as a specific type of 
amusement device indicates that the General Assembly intended 
that ski lifts are separate from skiing and therefore the 
means by which a person arrives at the slope is separate from 
the activity on the slope itself. 
We agree with Great Eastern’s contention that the 
identification of passenger tramways as a specific type of 
amusement device by the General Assembly reflects an intent to 
treat and regulate those devices separately from other types 
of amusement devices.  Such separation is consistent with the 
fact that when a rider exits a passenger tramway or “ski lift”5 
and proceeds to venture down a slope, the provider of the ski 
lift no longer controls the rider’s movement.  The rider 
retains the ability to choose his or her route down the slope 
and otherwise control the descent.  However, as Great Eastern 
recognizes, the conveyer system used in conjunction with the 
snow tubing ride in this case does not fit within the 
                     
5 The Board in adopting the VADR specifically identified 
passenger tramways as including “ski lifts.”  See Virginia 
Dep’t of Housing & Community Development, Preface to Virginia 
Amusement Device Regulations (2003 ed. 2005). 
 
8
definition of “passenger tramway” contained in Code § 36-
98.3(A) and the VADR.  That definition requires not only that 
the passenger tramway “transport passengers uphill” but also 
that the tramway be “suspended in the air by the use of steel 
cables, chains or belts, or by ropes, and usually supported by 
trestles or towers with one or more spans.”  Code § 36-
98.3(A); 13 VAC § 5-31-20(A). 
We need not decide here, however, whether the conveyor 
system used in conjunction with the snow tubing ride in this 
case should be treated as part of, or separate from, the 
remainder of the ride for purposes of qualifying as an 
amusement device.  Considering the facts of this case and the 
Board’s broad application of the definition of “amusement 
device,” we conclude that the snow tubing ride qualifies as an 
amusement device under the VADR independent of the passenger 
conveyor system. 
The mountain slope upon which the snow tubing ride is 
located, while providing the platform on which the ride 
occurs, does not do so in its natural, undisturbed state.  In 
creating the ride, the slope was considerably reformed through 
extensive movement of earth and formation of chute-like lanes 
necessary to guide the riders down the slope.  Furthermore, an 
integral part of the ride was the blue wall made of stadium 
padding constructed at the end of the ride.  These elements 
 
9
satisfy the requirement that an amusement device be a 
structure. 
 
The definition of amusement device also requires that 
riders be “conveyed or moved.”  Code § 36-98.3(A); 13 VAC § 5-
31-20(A).  This language imports a circumstance in which the 
rider is a passive participant and does not exert control over 
his or her direction during the ride.  While engaged in the 
snow tubing ride, the rider’s path is guided solely by the 
chute-like lanes and the rider exercises no control over the 
path of his or her descent.6  The snow tube ride therefore is 
one in which the rider is “conveyed or moved” as required by 
the definition.  Finally, the movement must be “in an unusual 
manner for diversion.”  There can be little disagreement that 
riding an inflated rubber donut-style tube down a slope in a 
chute-like lane is an “unusual manner” of movement and done 
“for diversion.”  
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we will reverse the 
judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
Reversed and remanded. 
 
                     
6 The relative lack of control available to a snow tube 
rider compared to a skier distinguishes landscape architecture 
and other improvements made to a ski slope from those made to 
a snow tube chute. 
 
10