Court Opinion

ID: 2964930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:06.975423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.917288
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [Not for Publication]
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1375

                                  DIANA M. GILBERT,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              SUNDAY RIVER SKIWAY CORP.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Alton C. Stevens with  whom Marden, Dubord, Bernier & Stevens  was
            ________________            _________________________________
        on brief for appellant.
            Evan M. Hansen with  whom Elizabeth J. Wyman and Preti,  Flaherty,
            ______________            __________________     _________________
        Beliveau & Pachios were on brief for appellee.
        __________________

                                 ____________________

                                   October 22, 1997
                                 ____________________
                      Per Curiam.    This   appeal   raises   an  unusual
                      Per Curiam.
                      __________

            argument:  that  the  district  court's  jury   instructions,

            although     correctly   summarizing  the   controlling  law,

            described a  legal issue not  generated by the  evidence, and

            therefore were so likely to have confused the jury that a new

            trial is warranted.  We reject this argument and affirm. 

                      On  March   10,  1994,   plaintiff/appellant  Diana

            Gilbert participated in  the Guaranteed Learn to  Ski Program

            at   Sunday  River,  a   ski  area  owned   and  operated  by

            defendant/appellee Sunday  River  Skiway  Corporation.    The

            instructor assigned to plaintiff's novice  class first taught

            Gilbert and two others basic skiing techniques, including how

            to  stop and  turn.   Because the  lift customarily  used for

            class was not  operating, the instructor took the  group on a

            lift  that  went  higher  on the  mountain  than  the  normal

            beginners slope.   The instructor then directed  the students

            to   ski  down  to  the   beginners  area  usually  used  for

            instruction.   On  her first  turn,  Gilbert accelerated  too

            quickly and fell, injuring her knee.  This suit followed. 

                      The   Maine   Skier's   and   Tramway   Passengers'

            Responsibilities  Act ("MSTPRA"),  26 M.R.S.A.    488 (1988),

            states  that "each  skier who  participates in  the sport  of

            skiing  shall be  deemed  to  have assumed  the  risk of  the

            dangers inherent in the sport . . . ."  Although  section 488

            is designed to protect ski area operators from  liability for

            skiers' injuries,  the  statute contains  an  exception  that

            imposes liability on a ski area when the skier's injuries are

                                         -3-
                                          3

            "actually caused by the negligent operation of the ski area."

            Id.   Gilbert  presented evidence  to the  jury that  the ski
            ___

            instructor  brought her to  a slope that was  too steep for a

            first-time skier and that this conduct constituted  negligent

            operation of the ski area.

                      At  the close  of  the  evidence,  and  after  some

            deliberation,  the   district  court  charged  the   jury  by

            paraphrasing section 488.  The charge stated: 

                      Maine  law  provides  that  everyone  who
                      participates  in  the   sport  of  skiing
                      assumes the  risk of dangers  inherent in
                      the  sport  and  responsibility  for  any
                      injury  unless  the injury  was  actually
                      caused by the  negligent operation of the
                      ski  area.   In this case,  the plaintiff
                      Diana Gilbert  claims that  the defendant
                      Sunday    River     Skiway    Corporation
                      negligently  operated  its  ski  area  in
                      instructing  her   where  to  ski   as  a
                      beginner enrolled in the Guaranteed Learn
                      to  Ski Program,  and  that  it was  this
                      negligence  that  caused her  injury  and
                      damages that she now seeks to recover. 
                                         ...
                      If you find that Sunday River was not
                      negligent or that its negligence did not
                      cause Diana Gilbert's injuries, then your
                      verdict must be for Sunday River.

            Gilbert seasonably objected to the instruction.  The jury 

            returned a verdict that Sunday River was not negligent. 

                      Gilbert concedes that the district court's

            instruction does not misstate or misdescribe the Maine skier

            statute in any way.  Rather, Gilbert argues that, because

            section 488 arguably does not require the jury to decide

            whether she had assumed the risk of her injuries, the court's

                                         -4-
                                          4

            reference to assumption of the risk was so confusing that a

            new trial is warranted.  For this proposition, Gilbert relies

            exclusively on dictum from State v. Gilbert, 473 A.2d 1273
                                       _____    _______

            (Me. 1984), which, while affirming a trial court's refusal to

            include an irrelevant affirmative defense instruction in a

            criminal case, states the unremarkable proposition that "[a]n

            instruction on an issue not generated by the evidence would

            serve only to confuse or mislead the jury."  Id. at 1277. 
                                                         ___

            Gilbert's reliance is misplaced. 

                      We reject Gilbert's argument for two reasons. 

            First, the court's inclusion of the assumption of the risk

            language was not extraneous or irrelevant.  To the contrary,

            the language was a necessary part of the cogent summary of

            the controlling law that the district court appropriately

            provided the jury.  See Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 50 F.3d
                                ___ ______    _________________

            1291, 1295 (4th Cir. 1995)(noting it would be "truly bizarre"

            if the district court were not allowed to cite assumption of

            the risk language in the controlling skier statute in its

            instructions).  "The instructions, rather than being

            overinclusive, were thorough."  State v. Baker, 505 A.2d 96,
                                            _____    _____

            98 (Me. 1986).  Second, assuming for the sake of argument

            that the court's summary of section 488 constitutes an

            erroneous instruction on an issue not generated by the

            evidence, we are at a loss to see how Gilbert suffered legal

            prejudice as a result.  "An error in jury instructions will

                                         -5-
                                          5

            warrant reversal of a judgment only if the error is

            determined to have been prejudicial, based on a review of the

            record as a whole."  Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22, 26 (1st
                                 _____    _________

            Cir. 1992).  The charge was a model of clarity in directing

            the jury to decide whether Sunday River was negligent in its

            operation of the ski area.  These instructions gave the jury

            ample guidance and leeway to find Sunday River negligent. 

            How an accurate description of the applicable law could have

            deflected a reasonable jury from deciding whether Sunday

            River was negligent truly escapes us.  

                      Affirmed.   Costs to the Appellee.
                      Affirmed.   Costs to the Appellee.
                      ________    _____________________

                                         -6-
                                          6