Rees v. Crawford CA3
Filed 4/8/15 Rees v. Crawford CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer)
MARIJANE REES, C073460
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. SCV0030003)
v.
CAITLIN CRAWFORD,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant Marijane Rees was injured during the performance of her job as a ski instructor at Alpine Meadows Ski Resort. She brought a negligence action against the skier who collided with her, Caitlin Crawford. The trial court granted Crawford’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds Rees had assumed the risk of being injured from a collision with another skier, and Crawford’s conduct was not reckless because it was neither completely outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport, nor done with a deliberate disregard of the high degree of probability that an injury would result. Rees argues there was sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Crawford’s conduct was reckless. We disagree and shall affirm the judgment.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Rees worked for Alpine Meadows Ski Resort as a supervisor for the adult ski school, and had been a ski instructor for 27 years. At the time of the incident, she was instructing two students on the Sherwood run, which is a run of intermediate difficulty. She and her students were on the far left side of the run, practicing slow, controlled turns, with Rees in the lead, and the two students following her. Rees was wearing an orange jacket. Crawford had been skiing since the age of six, and was capable of skiing expert runs. On the day of the accident, she was skiing with her boyfriend, and because he was a faster skier, they had planned to meet at the bottom of the run. As Crawford was skiing down the run, she noticed three people who appeared to be standing in a circle to her left, approximately 25 feet left of the center of the run, and approximately 15 to 20 feet from her. At this point, she had completed about three-quarters of the run. When she saw the group of three, the slope was starting to level off, and she could see the chairlift. She started to ski straight in order to have enough momentum to make it to the chairlift. Her boyfriend was further down the mountain on the right side. Crawford was going to ski past the group of three on her left, when she saw Rees in her peripheral vision starting to do “figure eights.” She stated that Rees went directly in front of her and she had no time to react. She screamed and they collided. As Rees was on her sixth consecutive turn, she heard a shout and almost simultaneously felt the impact. She never saw Crawford until Crawford was almost on her. Rees flew up and came down on her left hip, then rolled and landed again on her right shoulder. Her resting point was approximately 20 feet from the point of impact. Rees fractured her femur, requiring insertion of a titanium rod, “smashed” her bicep tendon, and tore her rotator cuff.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)