T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its p e r s u a s i v e v a l u e c o n s i s t e n twi th F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 2 . 1 ( e f f. De c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 2 . 1 (ef f. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). T he H onor abl e J udi th C . H err er a, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof ** N ew M exi co, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### D e c e m b e r 28, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT SH A RO N M U LLE R and J EFF M ULL ER, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. N o. 03- 8072 JA C K S O N H O L E M O U N T A IN RE S OR T CO RP OR AT I ON, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. S T AT E OF WYOM I NG, Interv en o r. ( D. C. No . 0 1 - CV - 1 6 8 - D) ( D . W y om i ng)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B R I S C O E , and HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udges , and HERR ER A , D i s tr i ctJ udge ** A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ld n o t m a ter iallya ss ist in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is appea l . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e,-2-

o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. Pl ai nt i ffs Shar on M ul l erand J eff M ul l erappea l fr om the j udgm entent er ed i n favor of d efen dan tJackson H ole M ou ntai n R esortC orporat i on (“the R esort ”) on t he M ull ers ’ negl i gence cl ai m . A ft era thr ee- daytr i al befor e a magi s tr at e j udge, a j urydet erm i ned that the i nj ur i es thatShar on s uffe r ed w hi l e att empt i ng t o boar d a gondol a w er e an i nher ent r i s k o f s ki i ng un de rthe W y omi ng Rec r e a t i on a l Sa fe tyA c t( “ RSA ” ) . The r e fo r e , the RSA p re c lu d e d a n yre c o v e ry f o r t h e M u lle rs u n d e r t h e irn e g lig e n c e c la im . O n a p p e a l, th e M u llers c h a llen g e th a t ju d g m e n t, as se rtin g th a t th e R S A is uncons t i tut i onal , thatthe R SA does notappl yt o thi s cas e, thatShar on’ s i nj ur i es di d not r es ul tfr om an i nher entr i s k of s ki i ng, and thatthe R es or ti s a comm on carr i erunderthe W y o mi n g Co n s t i tu t i o n . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f i r m. I. T he M ul l er s , a mar r i ed coupl e fr om H aw ai i , tr avel ed t o the R es or tfora s ki i ng vaca t i on. A pl t . A pp. at59. O n February3, 2001, Shar on att empt ed t o boar d a gondol a at th e Re s o r tt o r i d e t o th e t o p o f a h i l l . I d . a t3 2 . S h a r o n a l l e g e s th a th e rf o o tb e c a me caughti n a s pace betw een the l i ftand a bunc hed up mat . I d. at79. T he gondol a pul l ed her forw ard for approx i m at el yfi ft een f eetun t i l she m anag ed to escape. Id. at72 . A s a re s u lt, s h e s u f

f e re d p e rm a n e n t in

ju ri e s to h e r l e g . Id . a t 6 7 , 8 3 . C o n tend ing that the R eso rt ’s ne g li g en t op era ti o n o f th e g o n d o la l ed to S h aro n ’s in ju ri e s , th e M u lle rs s u e d th e s k i r e s o rt in f e d e ra l c o u rt u n d e r d iv e rs ity ju ri s d ic tio n . Iss u e s n o w ra ise d o n a p p e a l in v o lv e th e R S A , w h ich p ro v id e s:-3-

(a) A ny p e rs o n w h o ta ke s p a rt in a ny sp o rt o r r e c re a tio n a l o p p o rtu n ity a ss u m e s th e in h e re n t risk s in th a t sp o rt o r r e c re a tio n a l o p p o rtu n ity , w hether th o se risk s a re k n o w n o r u n k n o w n , an d is le g a llyre sp o n sib le f o r a n ya n d a ll d a m age, i njuryor deat h to hi m sel f or ot her persons or propertythat r esul ts f r o m th e i n h e r e n tr i s k s i n th a ts p o r to rr e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r tu n i ty. (b ) A p ro v id e r o f

a n ysp o rt o r re c re a tio n a l o p p o rtu n ity is n o t r e q u ire d to el i m i nat e, a l t erorcontr ol the i nher entr i s ks w i thi n the part i cul ars por tor r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r tu n i ty. (c) A cti o n s b ase d u p o n n eg li g en ce o f the p rov ider w h ere in the d am ag e, i n jury ordeath i s notthe r es ul tof an i nher entr i s k of the s por torr ecr eat i onal o p p o rt u n ity sh a ll b e p re s e rv e d p u rs u a n t to W .S . 1 -1 -1 0 9 . W YO . S TAT . A NN . § 1- 1- 123( a) , ( b) , ( c) ( emphasi s added) . T he A ctdefi nes “i nher ent r i s k” as “thos e dange r s orcondi t i ons w hi ch ar e cha r act er i s t i c of, i ntr i ns i c t o, oran integ ral pa rto f a n ysp o rto r recre ati o n al op p o rtu n ity . ” Id . § 1 -1-1 2 2 (a)(i ). T h e R S A ’s excl us i on cl aus e pr es erves the r i ghtt o s ue on “a caus e of a ct i on bas ed upon the des i gn or m anufa ctur e of s portorr ecr eat i onal equi pm entorpr oduct s ors afe tyequi pm entus ed in c id e n ta l to o r r e q u ir e d b yth e s p o rt o r r e c re a tio n a l o p p o rt u n ity.” Id . § 1 -1 -1 2 2 (a )( ii) . A ttr i al , the magi s tr at e j udge rul ed that§ 1- 1- 123’ s i nher entr i s k s t andar d appl i ed, beca us e the fa ct s of the ca s e di d nottr i ggerthe R SA ’ s excl us i on cl aus e. A pl t . A pp. at45- 4 7 . A s a c o n se q u e n c e , the c o u rt in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t th e R e so rt w o u ld n o t b e liab le if M ul l er ’ s i nj ury“r es ul t ed fr om an i nher entr i s k of the r ecr eat i onal oppor tuni tyi n w hi ch sh e w a s ta k in g p a rt.” Id . at 4 2 , 4 5 -4 7 . T h e c o u rt a lso d e n ied th e M u llers ’ m o tio n to in c lu d e a ju ryin stru c tio n th a t th e R e so rt is a c o m m o n c a rrie r u n d e r S e c tio n 7 o f A rticle 10 t o the W y om i ng C ons t i tut i on, w hi ch w oul d have s ubj ect ed the R es or tt o a hi gher s t andar d of ca r e. I d. at53- 54.-4-

T he j uryul t i m at el yfound forthe R es or t , concl udi ng thatShar on’ s i nj ur i es r es ul t ed f ro m a n in h e re n t risk o f

a re c re a tio n a l o p p o rtu n ityu n d e r th e R S A . A f ter th e m a g istra te j udge ent er ed j udgm enti n favorof the R es or t , the M ul l er s fi l ed thi s appea l . I ni t i al l y , t he M ul l er s r ai s ed fouri s s ues : ( 1) w hetherthe R SA i s uncons t i tut i onal , beca us e i tvi ol at es equal pr ot ect i on pr i nci pl es and i s voi d forvaguene s s ; ( 2) w hetherthe R SA ’ s excl us i on cl aus e bar s appl i cat i on of the R SA ’ s i nher entr i s k s t andar d t o thi s cas e; ( 3) w hetheran i nj uryfr om l oadi ng ont o a gondol a i s an i nher entr i s k of al pi ne s ki i ng; and ( 4) w hether the courti m pr oper l yfai l ed t o i ns tructon the R es or t ’ s s t atus as a comm on carr i erunder th e W y o m in g C o n s titu tio n . A p lt. O p e n in g B r. a t 1 -2 . II. W e begi n byi dent i fy i ng thos e i s s ues thathave be en addr es s ed bythe W y om i ng S u p rem e C o u rtas a resu lto f o u r ce rt ify ing q u esti o n s to tha t cou rt . P u rsua n t t o 1 0 th C ir . R . 27. 1 and W y o. R . A pp. P. 11. 01, thi s courtcert i fi ed the s econd, thi r d, and fourth i s s ues i dent i fi ed above t o t he W y om i ng Supr eme C our t . O n A ugus t11, 2006, the W y om i ng S up rem e C ou rti ssued an op i nion answ eri ng ou r cert i fi ed q uest i on s. B ased on tho se answ ers , w e con cl ud e t he m agis trat e j ud ge co rr ect l yi nst ruct ed the j uryon i nh erentri sk beca us e the exc l us i on cl aus e does notappl yt o “a s ki l i ftoper at ed bya r ecr eat i onal p ro v id e r.” M u lle r v . J a c k s o n H o le M o u n ta in R e s o rt , 1 3 9 P .3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 6 (W y o . 2 0 0 6 ). A lso , w e c o n c lu d e th e in h e re n t risk s o f a lp in e sk iin g in c lu d e in ju rie s th a t o c c u r “ w h ile boar di ng a s ki l i ft . ” I d. at1168. T hes e conc l us i ons r enderthe comm on carr i eri s s ue m oot . I d. at1164. I n s uppl ement al br i efi ng, the M ul l er s di d notcont end thattheT he onl yexce pt i ons i ncl ude a M ont ana c as e dea l i ng w i th a s i m i l ars t atut e i n t hat 1 s t at e and a cas e fr om the D i s tr i ctof W y om i ng, W es tbr ook v. T et on C ountySch. D i s t . N o. 1 , 9 1 8 F . S u p p . 1 4 7 5 (D . W y o . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e M u llers a p p e a r to c ite to W e stb ro o k to e sta b lish th e g e n e ra l p ro p o sitio n th a t d u e p ro c e ss re q u ire s p ro h ib iti o n s to b e c lea rly de fi ne d. The M ul l e r s a l s o c i t e t o W a l t e r s v. G r a nd Tet on Cr e s tO ut fi t t e r s , I nc . , 80 4 F. Supp. 1442 ( D . W y o. 1992) , as an exa m pl e of a courttry i ng t o appl ythe R SA ’ s i nher ent r i s k s t andar d. Fi nal l y , the M ul l er s hi ghl i ghtC l aj on Pr od. C orp. v. Pet er a, 70 F. 3d 1566 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) f

o r th e g e n e ra l p ro p o sitio n th a t co u rts m a ya d d re ss th e c o n stitu tio n a lity o f s ta tu te s e v e n w h e n th o s e s ta tu te s in v o lv e a le g is la tu re ’s p u b lic p o lic yju d g m e n ts . V i ew ed i ndi vi dual l yoras a w hol e, thes e ci t at i ons do notcaus e us t o concl ude thatthe M u lle rs h a v e a lle g e d a f e d e ra l c o n s titu tio n a l c la im .

-5- W y o m in g S u p re m e C o u rt’s a n sw e rs f a iled to d isp o se o f

th e se c o n d , third , an d f o u rth i s s ues , char act er i zi ng the fi r s ti s s ue as the “r emai ni ng i s s ue” be for e us . See A pl t . Supp. B r. a t 1 . III . T he s ol e i s s ue r emai ni ng i n thi s cas e i s w hetherthe R SA i s uncons t i tut i onal . T he M ul l e r s a r gu e tha tthe RSA vi ol a t e s the i rr i gh tt o e qu a l pr ot e c t i on , be c a us e the RSA benef i t s one cl as s ( r ecr eat i onal pr ovi der s ) atthe expe ns e of a nothercl as s ( thos e i nj ur ed w hil e t aking pa rti n recr eat i on al act i vit i es) . A plt . O pen i ng B r. at14 -15. T he M ull ers al so as s ertthatthe R SA i s uncons t i tut i onal l yvague, beca us e the phr as e “i nher entr i s k” i s t oo ambi guous t o gi ve not i ce t o s ki er s thatthei ri nj ur i es on the s l opes m aynotbe co m p en sab le. Id. at 16 . A lth o u g h the M u ll ers f ail to m ak e c lear w h ethe r th eyare c o n t e n d i n g th a tth e RS A ru n s a f o u l o f s t a t e o rf

e d e r a l c o n s t i tu t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s , we concl ude thatthe M ul l er s ’ ar gum entfocus es on the W y om i ng C ons t i tut i on beca us e the authori t i es the M ull ers ci t e i n sup po rtof thei r const i tuti on al argum ents are, for the m ost part , W y om i ng st at e cases. 1-6-

B efor e r eac hi ng the mer i t s of the M ul l er s ’ ar gum ent s , w e mustas cert ai n w hether thes e cons t i tut i onal i s s ues ar e pr oper l ybefor e us . G ener al l y , w e w i l l onl ycons i der arg u m en ts on ap p ea l th at th e p arti es h av e f ir st r aised b ef

o re the d istri ct co u rt . In re W a lk e r, 9 5 9 F .2 d 8 9 4 , 8 9 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). T h e S tate o f W y o m in g , an in ter v e n o r in th is case, con t end s that the M ull ers nev er r ai sed t heirequ al prot ect i on or vagu eness a rg u m e n ts p ri o r t o th e ira s s e rt io n o f th e s e a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l. I n te rv e n o r B r. a t 1 9 -2 0 . A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d, w e agr ee thatthe M ul l er s di d notpr es erve thes e ar gum ent s by r a i s i n g th e m b e l o w. T h e M u l l e r s c o n t e n d th a tth e y r a i s e d “ th e i s s u e o f th e [ R S A ’ s ] c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t y” befor e the magi s tr at e j udge and thatthe magi s tr at e j udge rul ed thatthe R SA w as cons t i tut i onal , thus pr es ervi ng thei requal pr ot ect i on and vague nes s ar gum ent s forour revi ew on app eal . A plt . R eplyB r. at2. T he m agis trat e j ud ge’s const i tuti on al analy si s, how ever , w as l i m i t ed t o w hetherhe s houl d i ns tructthe j urythatthe R es or tw as a comm on carr i erunderthe W y om i ng s t at e cons t i tut i on, ther ebyent i t l i ng the M ul l er s t o a hi gher s t andar d of ca r e. T he magi s tr at e j udge r efus ed t o gi ve the i ns truct i on aft erconcl udi ng that the co m m on carr i er i ssue had been rai sed t oo l at e i n the proceedings and becau se o p e ra to rs o f

sk i g o n d o las a re n o t co m m o n c a rrie rs. A p lt. A p p . at 3 4 -3 5 , 5 3 -5 4 . W h ile the M u ll ers a re c o rrect th at th eir co m m o n ca rri er a rgu m en ts place d the R S A ’s c o n stitu tio n a litya t issu e , tho se a rg u m e n ts q u e stio n e d th e R S A ’s c o n stitu tio n a lityo n ly w i th r egar d t o t he comm on carr i erpr ovi s i on. O urw ai verrul e i s not“abs ol ut e, ” bec aus e w e mays t i l l cons i der , i n ourdi s cr et i on,-7-

an ar gum entnotr ai s ed bel ow w hen i tpr es ent s “‘ a s tr i ct l yl egal ques t i on, the pr oper reso luti o n o f w h ich is b ey o n d d o u b t or w h en m an ifest i n justi ce w o u ld o therw ise resu lt . ’” S u ss m a n v . P a tters o n , 1 0 8 F .3 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (q u o tin g D a ig le v . S h e ll O il C o. , 972 F. 2d 1527, 1539 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ) . W hi l e the M ul l er s ’ cons t i tut i onal i s s ues presentstri ct l yl egal quest i on s, w e cann ot concl ud e t hat the p roper r esol uti on of these i s s ues i s bey ond doubtorthata mani fes ti nj us t i ce w oul d r es ul ti f w e do notnow cons i der thes e i s s ues . A l though t he M ul l er s w er e aw ar e thatthe R SA coul d i m pl i cat e the W y om i ng C ons t i tut i on, as evi dence d bythei rar gum ent s r egar di ng the comm on carr i er pr ovi s i on, theydi d notpur s ue the equa l pr ot ect i on and due pr oces s chal l enges now al l eged . W e decli ne the i nv i t at i on t o ad dress these eq ual pr otect i on and otherdu e process iss u e s w h ich a re ra ise d f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. A F F IR M E D . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge