P went with two older male friends to D for a midnight ski session. P was 16 years old and a high school student. She had limited experience as a skier, all of which had been at D where she had skied once before and had snowboarded twice. P was on an intermediate slope when she fell at a spot which the parties have variously referred to as a bump, a ridge, a jump, a ramp, or a mogul. P hit the ground. There was conflicting evidence as to whether she had hit a tree. The bump on the slope had formed as skiers and snowboarders cut across the slope and moved the snow. P sued D as a result of the accident. P incurred brain damage and a diminished future earning capacity. P sued D and alleged that D had been negligent in the design, maintenance, and staffing of its skiing facilities and the supervision of its customers. D raised assumption of risk as a defense. D put on evidence that it had exercised reasonable care and that the bump and trees on the slope were risks inherent in the sport of skiing. D also introduced evidence of P's drug use. The court instructed the jury that if the bump was an inherent risk of skiing, it should find for D. The jury returned a verdict in favor of D. P appealed. In part, P argued that the jury instruction for assumption of the risk should have required the jury to find that P had knowledge and understood the dangers of skiing.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.