Opinion ID: 2192755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Fact Finding

Text: [¶ 5] We will not set aside a jury verdict unless no reasonable view of the evidence could sustain the verdict or it is prejudicially affected by error in instruction or rulings on evidence. We view the evidence and all justifiable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict. See M.R.Civ.P. 50(a), (b); Townsend v. Chute Chem. Co., 1997 ME 46, ¶ 8, 691 A.2d 199, 202. [¶ 6] We have previously addressed many of the issues present in this case in interpreting section 488 in Merrill v. Sugarloaf Mountain Corp., 1997 ME 180, 698 A.2d 1042. The key facts of Merrill and this case are similar for purposes of analysis of the legal issues: Expert skiers skiing a trail marked as an expert trail. Bamboo poles placed in or near the trail and intended to warn of a change in the slope or surface of the trail. Uncertainty as to whether the poles misled skiers regarding the condition at issue. The injured skier then skiing into a change of slope and surface (in Merrill ungroomed snow and a drainage depression, and in Hansen a very large patch of ice or hardpack snow wholly obscured by a breakover). A resulting fall and injury. On those facts in Merrill we overturned summary judgment, ruling that: Whether Merrill's injuries were caused by risks inherent in the sport of skiing is a question of fact that must be submitted to the jury. Section 488 does not specify what risks, as a matter of law, are inherent in skiing. In the absence of such statutory specification, whether a skier's injury results from an inherent risk depends on the factual circumstances of each case. Merrill, 1997 ME 180, ¶ 7, 698 A.2d at 1044 (footnote omitted). We went on to observe that: [T]he factfinder could conclude that the crossed bamboo poles negligently signalled to skiers that they could safely ski on either side of the poles. Id. ¶ 8, 698 A.2d at 1044. [¶ 7] The Hansen jury was instructed three months after Merrill, and with the teachings of Merrill well in mind. As in Merrill, the jury could have inferred that inadequately placed warning poles may have led skiers to believe that skiing was safe where in fact it was unsafe. Thus the decision was properly left to the jury in accordance with our opinion in Merrill.