Angela Carter
Case Review 3
Facts:
Maureen Soraghan was attending a skiing event in the winter of January 2000, with her daughter
at the Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort. Soraghan would become the plaintiff and the Ski Resort would
be known as the defendant. The Soraghan was not only a volunteer but a spectator as well. On
the day in question she was a spectator when she stepped in a hole on the grounds and injured
her knee while walking between buildings. Mt. Cranmore became the defendant in part because
it was the resort that Soraghan daughter ski club rented. Due to the hole being on the grounds,
the plaintiff accused the Ski Resort of not maintaining and they were responsible for her injuries
even though the court ruled in favor of the defendant, plaintiff did appeal the court citing the
recreational use statute RSA 508:14 (1997) did not apply to her case therefore the ruling was
overturned and cited with the plaintiff.
Issue:
Can the ski area division be held accountable for anybody injuries while on their property? Since
the plaintiff had gotten injured from stepping in the hole on the property can the ski resort be
held liable? Does this situation fall under RSA 508: 14? Were there any signs to caution a person
that an area was considered to be unsafe? Have there been any other incidents that would warrant
the property not maintaining the resort properly?
Holding:
According to RSA 508:14, if a private sector ownership lets the community use their land for
amusement purposes, the legislation protects people. The purpose of the recreational activity is
to encourage enjoyment of privately held land. Soraghan was on the resort property on the day of
her injury to be a spectator on day of question for her daughter’s contest. The judge awarded the
in favor of the defendant finding that the defendant was not liable under the recreational use
statute, RSA 508:14 (1997). The decision was challenged by the plaintiff. The previous
judgment stated irrespective of if they are on their territory as legitimate clients or not, an
individual, unless they're a formal or informal landowner, is accountable for and carries all
obligations for all individuals therefore overturned the ruling. By law any state the owner of the
assets is held responsible for any harm that may result when a person enters the facilities for
causes relating to the conduct of the proprietor and the proprietor demands payment.
Rationale
In hindsight, the interpretation the judge saw was the resort was not held liable due to most
people who enter a private land for recreational are supposed to safeguard the proprietors. This
was changed due to a federal proposal that indicates building owners are in charge of all
maintenance and security of their land at all times, irrespective of the season. Since there was no
signs to indicate a caution area or beware the appeal judge issued a just decision against them.
Question/Discussion:
One can argue that is a person to always be vigilant in their surroundings. This case had a good
viewpoint on both sides of the legal spectrum. According to the reading, it is with civil legal
mandates or forbids municipal leisure or sporting organizations. The resort was eventually held
liable for failing to follow the requirements set out by the legal system.
References:
Cotten, D. J., & Wolohan, J. T. (2017). Chapter 1 and 2. In Law for Recreation & Sport
Managers (7th ed., pp. 2-40). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, 152 N.H. 399 (2005)
