Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Brigance v. Vail Summit Resorts Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
883 F.3d 1243 (2018)
An exculpatory clause shields a party from liability for damages arising from a contract's performance.
In Brigance versus Vail Summit Resorts Incorporated, we explore the enforceability of such clauses.
Teresa Brigance planned to take a ski lesson at a Colorado facility operated by Vail Summit Resorts.
Before the lesson, Brigance signed a school waiver with a lengthy section labeled release of liability and waiver of certain legal rights.
The section stated that the skier assumed all dangers and risks of the activity, including injuries or death resulting from employee negligence.
The section also said that the skier released Summit from liability and wouldn't sue. Further, the ticket for this ski lift included an additional liability waiver warning of dangers and stating that the user assumed all risks and held Summit harmless for any injuries.
After receiving some instruction on chairlift use, Brigance boarded the lift.
Unfortunately, as Brigance attempted to unload, her ski boot became stuck, immobilizing Brigance's leg.
The leg broke as the chairlift continued moving forward.
Brigance sued Summit, asserting multiple negligence based claims.
She argued that her injury resulted from Summit's failure to provide adequate chairlift instruction, to timely stop the lift, and to appropriately hire, train, and supervise employees.
The district court dismissed some of Brigance's claims. Summit then moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims, arguing that they were barred by the school and lift ticket waivers.
The district court granted summary judgment in Summit's favor, and Brigance appealed to the tenth circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/brigance-v-vail-summit-resorts-inc
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/brigance-v-vail-summit-resorts-inc
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Brigance v. Vail Summit Resorts Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
883 F.3d 1243 (2018)
An exculpatory clause shields a party from liability for damages arising from a contract's performance.
In Brigance versus Vail Summit Resorts Incorporated, we explore the enforceability of such clauses.
Teresa Brigance planned to take a ski lesson at a Colorado facility operated by Vail Summit Resorts.
Before the lesson, Brigance signed a school waiver with a lengthy section labeled release of liability and waiver of certain legal rights.
The section stated that the skier assumed all dangers and risks of the activity, including injuries or death resulting from employee negligence.
The section also said that the skier released Summit from liability and wouldn't sue. Further, the ticket for this ski lift included an additional liability waiver warning of dangers and stating that the user assumed all risks and held Summit harmless for any injuries.
After receiving some instruction on chairlift use, Brigance boarded the lift.
Unfortunately, as Brigance attempted to unload, her ski boot became stuck, immobilizing Brigance's leg.
The leg broke as the chairlift continued moving forward.
Brigance sued Summit, asserting multiple negligence based claims.
She argued that her injury resulted from Summit's failure to provide adequate chairlift instruction, to timely stop the lift, and to appropriately hire, train, and supervise employees.
The district court dismissed some of Brigance's claims. Summit then moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims, arguing that they were barred by the school and lift ticket waivers.
The district court granted summary judgment in Summit's favor, and Brigance appealed to the tenth circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/brigance-v-vail-summit-resorts-inc
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/brigance-v-vail-summit-resorts-inc
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
