had skied down the Rampasture trail and was headed, via a crossing trail, to the Coolidge Street trail, where he had helped set up a race course. Accompanied by his younger sister, “J.H.”, and the head coach for the program, M.H. Background On February 3, 2011, the plaintiffs’ thirteen-year-old son, “M.H.”, was participating in a ski racing program at Loon Mountain. The following background summary is consistent with that approach. With the facts so construed, “questions of law ripe for resolution at the pleadings stage.” Simmons, 575 F.3d at 30. The court “may consider not only the complaint but also “facts extractable from documentation annexed to or incorporated by reference in the 3 complaint and matters susceptible to judicial notice.” Rederford v. In ruling on such a motion, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts set forth in the complaint and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. To survive such a motion, the complaint must make factual allegations sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Applicable legal standard A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is evaluated under essentially the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs’ claims against LMRC and Boyne must be dismissed. This argument, however, cannot be reconciled with the broad language of the statute itself, nor with the case law interpreting it. 2 clutches of the Ski Statute’s ski area immunity provision by arguing that the provision does not apply where, as here, the suit arises out of injuries caused by a ski area employee who fails to observe the responsibilities the Ski Statute imposes on skiers.
The plaintiffs have gamely attempted to pry this suit from the 1 The defendants’ motion relies upon Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), but, because the defendants answered the complaint before moving to dismiss it, the court treats the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c)–-a “largely academic” distinction since Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c) “impose identical standards.” Holder v. After careful consideration, the court grants the defendants’ motion. § 1332(a)(1) (diversity), because the plaintiffs are Massachusetts citizens, the defendants are citizens of New Hampshire and Michigan, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 12(c).1 This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. LMRC and Boyne have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against them, arguing that § 225-A:24, I-which expressly identifies “collisions with other skiers or other persons” as one of the “inherent risks, dangers, or hazards” of skiing–-bars those claims. Those injuries arose from an on-trail collision between the boy and a Loon Mountain employee who, the plaintiffs allege, “ducked under a rope marking a permanently closed section of the trail” immediately before the collision.
Plaintiffs Susan and Michael Hanus have sued Loon Mountain Recreation Corporation (“LMRC”) and Boyne USA, Inc., the operators of one of New Hampshire’s ski areas, Loon Mountain Resort, for injuries the plaintiffs’ minor son suffered while skiing. The question presented in this case is the extent to which this provision immunizes ski areas from liability for skier-to-skier collisions caused by their employees. accepts as a matter of law, the dangers inherent in the sport, and to that extent may not maintain an action against operator for any injuries which result from such inherent risks, dangers, or hazards.” N.H. In particular, the Ski Statute provides that “ach person who participates in the sport of skiing. (the “Ski Statute”) that limits those areas’ liability to their visitors. Like many states with a robust ski industry, New Hampshire has enacted a statute–-the “Skiers, Ski Area and Passenger Tramway Safety” law, N.H. 2014 DNH 075 Loon Mountain Recreation Corp., Boyne USA, Inc., and Scott Patterson MEMORANDUM ORDER Every winter, thousands of skiers and snowboarders journey to the slopes of New Hampshire’s ski areas from locations both far and near. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Susan Hanus and Michael Hanus, individually and as the Parents and Next Friends of M.H. Loon Mountain Recreation Corporation et al Doc.
0 kommentar(er)
