Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Skiing Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves update to Utahs inherent-risk ski statute after debate over tubing protections
Summary
The House passed Senate Bill 135 to expand the 1979 inherent-risk statute to cover modern ski-resort activities; a floor fight over whether tubing should be included produced failed amendments but prompted proposals to require marking or padding of man-made hazards.
The Utah House voted 52 to 15 to pass Senate Bill 135, a measure updating the state's 1979 statute on inherent risks in skiing to reflect modern resort activities such as terrain parks and half-pipes. The bill was transmitted to the Senate for the President's signature.
Supporters, led by Representative Hughes, said the statute simply clarifies risks that have emerged since 1979 and does not eliminate avenues for litigation if a resort is negligent. "This bill does try to better identify and better define since 1979 till today that ski slopes have changed," Representative Hughes said on the floor.
Opponents pressed amendments aimed at narrowing the bill's protection for certain activities. Representative Wyatt moved to remove tubing from the list of covered activities and replace language on line 60 to read "or snowboard," arguing tubing riders cannot steer. "I cannot steer my tube, period," Wyatt said during debate, adding that resorts should not receive broad liability protection for unsteerable tubing operations.
Representative Lawrence and others proposed a separate amendment to require resorts to mark or enclose man-made hazards—adding the words "fenced, roped, marked, or enclosed" before references to terrain features and posts—so that inclusion of such features as "inherent risk" would be contingent on reasonable safety measures. Lawrence said the amendment aimed to preserve skierss safety and avoid incentives for operators to stop marking hazards.
Floor votes defeated Wyatt's narrow replacement and the specific marking/padding amendment in their original forms, but the debate produced multiple procedural votes and several proposals that were considered. Supporters argued the changes were necessary to reflect new activities and avoid chilling recreational options; critics warned the bill could grant excessive deference to operators and remove incentives for basic safety measures.
The bill's passage updates the statutory language recognizing the inherent dangers of participation in certain winter-sport activities and leaves the question of operator negligence for courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. The next procedural step is transmittal to the Senate for the President's signature.
