Ashley Allen
Southern New Hampshire University
Case Brief
Case: Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, 152 N.H. 399 (2005)
Facts:
In January 2000, Maureen Soraghan (plaintiff) attended a youth ski meet at Mt. Cranmore
Ski Resort (defendant). Her daughter was a participant in the ski meet in which her daughter's
ski club paid to reserve the property and her daughter also paid a fee to participate. The plaintiff
was both a spectator and a volunteer at the ski race and did not pay a fee to attend. While the
plaintiff was walking to her car to retrieve ski equipment, she fell in a hole between some of the
buildings and severely damaged her knee. The plaintiff accused the resort of not maintaining
their property and claimed that they were responsible for her injuries. The higher court sided
with the defendant, but the lower court reversed and remanded that decision.
Issue:
Are the ski area operations department responsible for people on their property regardless of
whether they are volunteers or paying customers?
Is the Ski resort responsible for Soraghan injury because she fell in a hole on their property?
Is RSA 508: 14 applicable in this case?
Did the defendant properly maintain the property?
Did the defendant properly mark areas that could be potentially hazardous?
Holding:
The RSA 508: 14, I, the statute offers protection once privatized property owners allow the
public to use their property for entertaining reasons. The recreational act determines to inspire
community fun usage of private-owned properties. The trial court granted the defendant's motion
for summary judgment, ruling that the defendant was not liable under the recreational use statute,
RSA 508:14 (1997), because "the plaintiff was on the defendant's property on the day of her
injury to be a spectator for her daughter's ski race" and "did not pay any consideration for that
activity." However, the plaintiff appealed the decision. The statutory law that reversed the initial
decision indicated that a person, whether public or private owner of land, is responsible and
holds all liability for people on their property, regardless of if they are present as paying
customers or not. The law further explains that when a person is within the premises for reasons
linked to the property owner's activity and that owners demand charges, the property owner is
liable for injuries that may occur.
Rationale
Notably, the higher court defended the ski resort stating that they are not liable for any person
injured on their terrain because private landowners are protected by ordinary citizens who make
their way onto the property. This was reversed because there is a new statute that implies those
people who own property are responsible for all upkeep and safety on their property at all times,
regardless of the time of year. The Supreme Court made a fair ruling against the accused
because, even though there was a large crack on the ground, the accused had employed no effort
to maintain it or even post a warning sign for users.
Question/Discussion:
Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort had a significant impact on statutory law as it relates to the
premises liability and the result of the court's decision in that it is a perfect example of what both
statutory law is a premises liability. In the textbook it states that statutory law requires or
prohibits public recreation or sport entities as in this case the ski resort was found liable because
they did not adhere to the rules under statutory law. As for premises liability this is what made
the ski resort responsible for the plaintiffs' injuries because she was present on their property
when this accident happened.
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)
