Court Opinion

ID: 9705270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:01:00.386704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:09.396860
License: Public Domain

Liacos, J.
(dissenting, with whom Wilkins and Abrams, JJ., join). I respectfully dissent. The court’s interpretation of G. L. c. 143, § 71P (1986 ed.), is too broad. The general purpose of G. L. c. 143, §§ 71H-71S (1986 ed.), is to set the terms of responsibility for ski area operators and skiers in a sport which has inherent risks of injury or even death. This legislative intent to protect ski area operators was designed, as the court indicates, not only to decrease the economic threat to the ski industry, but also to enhance the safety of skiers.
An examination of the whole statutory scheme reveals, however, that the Legislature did not intend to protect the ski area operators from claims for all harm which occurs in connection with skiing accidents, regardless of where the negligence that caused the harm takes place. Indeed, this court decided not long ago that G. L. c. 143, § 71P, on which it relies to rule adversely on this plaintiff’s claim, did not apply to wrongful death actions arising from injuries on the ski slope. Grass v. Catamount Dev. Corp., 390 Mass. 551 (1983) (O’Connor, J.). The court now ingores the wisdom of its own words in Grass, supra at 553: “Had the Legislature intended that G. L. c. 143, § 71P, should apply to claims for wrongful death as well as to claims for injuries not resulting in death, we believe it would have done so expressly . . . .” Here, however, the court extends the protective provisions of § 7 IP to ordinary commercial activity simply because it occurred at the base of a ski area and was conducted by the operator of the ski slope. No such intent can be perceived in this statute. To the contrary, the statute clearly manifests an intent to promote safety on ski slopes by regulating, through the creation of a recreational tramway board and otherwise, the operation of tramways, chair lifts, “J bars,” “T bars,” and the like (§§ 71H-71M). The *86statute defines the duties both of ski area operators and skiers (§§ 71K-71Q).
In § 710, liability of ski area operators for ski slope accidents is sharply limited: “A skier skiing down hill shall have the duty to avoid any collision with any other skier, person or object on the hill below him, and, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the responsibility for collisions by any skier with any other skier or person shall be solely that of the skier or person involved and not that of the operator, and the responsibility for the collision with an obstruction, man-made or otherwise, shall be solely that of the skier and not that of the operator, provided that such obstruction is properly marked pursuant to the regulations promulgated by the board” (emphasis supplied). Clearly, then, the statutory scheme is designed not only to enhance the safety of skiers, but also to limit the liability of a ski area operator for his negligent activities which cause injuries (but not deaths, see Grass, supra) on the ski slopes. It is in this context that the court ought to consider the additional protection of a ninety-day notice requirement, as well as the short statute of limitations of one year found in § 71P.
General Laws c. 143, § 71P, imposes a ninety-day notice requirement and a one-year statute of limitations on a party who brings suit against a ski area operator.1 The imposition in § 7 IP of the ninety-day notice requirement as a condition precedent to recovery confirms, I think, my view that this statute is designed only to protect the ski area operator as to claims arising from conditions on the ski slope. But there is an even stronger argument against the court’s position — that is in the very language of the statute. A “[s]ki area operator” is defined in G. L. c. 143, § 711(6), as “the owner or operator of a ski *87area.” In the same subsection, a “[s]ki area” is defined as: “[A]ll of the slopes and trails under the control of the ski area operator, including cross-country ski areas, slopes and trails, and any recreational tramway in operation on any such slopes or trails administered or operated as a single enterprise but shall not include base lodges, motor vehicle parking lots and other portions of ski areas used by skiers when not actually engaged in the sport of skiing” (emphasis supplied).
The alleged negligence and breach of warranty that occurred in this case happened in the rental shop in the base lodge area. It was there that the defendant rented allegedly defective equipment to the plaintiff and failed to check and to adjust that equipment. The injury was not due to ungroomed snow or exposed rocks or any condition on the slopes or trails under the control of the ski area operator. Rather, the injury allegedly was the result of a transaction in the rental shop, not of a defect on the slope. The rental shop is an area excluded from the purview of G. L. c. 143, § 71P, and thus the ninety-day notice requirement and the one-year statute of limitations do not apply.
The Legislature intended to separate the many functions of a ski area operator so as to focus on the business of operating ski slopes and trails. The statute does not apply where the alleged negligent behavior occurs when the ski area operator is acting as a restaurateur, barkeeper, parking lot owner, souvenir vendor, or, as is the case here, rental agent. For this reason, I would reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.

 The statute provides in pertinent part: “No action shall be maintained against a ski area operator for injury to a skier unless as a condition precedent thereof the person so injured shall, within ninety days of the incident, give to such ski area operator notice, by registered mail, of the name and address of the person injured, the time, place and cause of the injury. Failure to give the foregoing notice shall bar recovery .... An action to recover for such injury shall be brought within one year of the date of such injury.”