Colorado Court Hears Case of Man Who Sued Vail Resorts After Signing Two Liability Waivers

Why It Matters

The ruling will clarify the legal power of liability waivers, influencing resort risk management and consumer protection across the U.S. ski industry.

Key Takeaways

• Litterer signed two Epic Pass waivers, one in 2020, another in 2022
• Colorado Supreme Court may redefine enforceability of resort liability releases
• Prior Miller v. Crested Butte ruling limited blanket waivers in negligence cases
• Outcome could affect millions of Epic Pass holders nationwide

Pulse Analysis

Liability waivers have become a cornerstone of risk management for ski resorts, allowing operators to limit exposure to accidents that are, by nature, part of winter sports. Yet courts have increasingly scrutinized the breadth of these releases, especially when the language is vague or when the injury stems from alleged negligence. The 2022 Miller v. Crested Butte decision signaled that Colorado judges will not automatically uphold blanket waivers, setting a precedent that could ripple through other jurisdictions.

The Litterer case adds a new layer of complexity by involving two separate waivers signed at different times. Plaintiffs argue that the second signature does not retroactively nullify rights retained under the first agreement, and that the language may be unenforceable if it fails to meet clear, conspicuous standards. Vail Resorts, meanwhile, contends that the waivers are unambiguous and that the plaintiff voluntarily relinquished his right to sue. The Supreme Court’s analysis of the second waiver’s legal weight will likely address whether repeated acknowledgments strengthen a resort’s defense or merely reinforce consumer consent.

For the broader ski industry, the outcome could trigger a wave of contract revisions, heightened disclosure requirements, and possibly higher insurance premiums if courts deem waivers insufficient. Epic Pass holders—over 10 million nationwide—could see more detailed terms or be required to sign additional releases for specific activities. Ultimately, the decision will shape the balance between protecting businesses from costly litigation and preserving guests’ ability to seek redress for genuine negligence.