The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on September 21, 2026, that John Litterer, a snowboarder injured in a collision with a snowmobile, waived his right to sue Vail Summit Resorts, Inc. and its employee, Dwight McClure, when he purchased a ski pass. This ruling affects how liability waivers are interpreted in Colorado, particularly for ski resorts and their patrons.
The case, John Litterer v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., No. 25SC134, arose after Litterer sustained injuries in December 2020 while snowboarding at Breckenridge Ski Resort, which is owned by Vail Summit Resorts. After the incident, Litterer filed multiple claims against the resort and McClure. While his case was still active, he purchased a five-day Epic Pass for the 2022-23 ski season and signed an online waiver releasing any claims against the resort.
This waiver stated that by signing, Litterer was giving up all claims he might have against any released party, including Vail Summit Resorts and its employees. The resort argued that this waiver barred Litterer from pursuing his claims, leading to a series of court rulings that ultimately reached the Colorado Supreme Court.
The district court initially agreed with the resort's argument and dismissed Litterer's claims. Litterer then appealed, but the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision. The Supreme Court of Colorado granted certiorari to review the case, focusing on the nature of the waiver Litterer signed.
The court ruled that the 2022 online waiver functioned as a release, not an exculpatory agreement. Justice Brian Berkenkotter, writing for the majority, stated, "The 2022 online waiver operates as a release, not an exculpatory agreement." The court concluded that Litterer's claims for willful and wanton conduct and his request for exemplary damages were properly dismissed because they were barred by the waiver he signed.
The court emphasized that Litterer's purchase and acceptance of the Epic Pass demonstrated his assent to the terms of the waiver. It noted that he could not avoid his contractual obligations by claiming he did not read the agreement. Justice Berkenkotter wrote, "A party who signs a contract is presumed to know its contents," reinforcing the idea that individuals are responsible for understanding the agreements they enter into.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving liability waivers, particularly in the ski industry. It establishes that waivers signed after an injury can still release a party from liability for claims arising from prior incidents. The court's decision may encourage ski resorts to continue using liability waivers as a means of protecting themselves from lawsuits.
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Gabriel, expressed concern that the ruling allows ski resorts to evade responsibility for negligence. The dissent argued that the waiver's language could mislead customers about their rights and the extent of the release. Justice Gabriel noted, "The majority's decision is unjust to Litterer and will result in manifest injustice to innumerable unsuspecting ski pass purchasers like him."
Going forward, this ruling means that individuals purchasing ski passes or engaging in similar activities should carefully consider the liability waivers they sign. The decision underscores the importance of understanding the legal implications of such agreements, as they can significantly limit the ability to pursue claims for injuries.
As for what’s next, it remains unclear if Litterer will appeal this decision to a higher court or if there are related cases pending. However, the Supreme Court's ruling sets a precedent that could influence how future liability waivers are interpreted in Colorado and potentially beyond.