Downhill Litigator

Eagle Valley Enterprise
Sunday Extra
Sunday, March 24, 1996
By Scott N. Miller, Sunday Extra editor
(distributed with the Sunday Denver Post in Eagle and Garfield Counties, Colorado)

Skiing's a pretty safe sport, overall. But a few times a year, the lawyers get called out.
Jim Chalat's one of those lawyers... [He] started by accident in 1980, when Arlene Abady, editor of the Colorado Bar Association's monthly law journal, THE COLORADO LAWYER --who knew Chalat skied competitively in high school and college--called to ask him to write a skiing-related article for a THE COLORADO LAWYER (See, "Ski Tips for Attorneys," The Colo. Lawyer, March 1980-ed.).

That article was the first of 20 or so ski-related journal pieces and more and more involvement in the legal side of skiing. That involvement includes not only experience as a litigator and consultant, but also editorialist.

A couple of times a year since 1988, Chalat has self-published Ski Safety News, a fact- and opinion-filled look at developments in ski industry law. Chalat sees Ski Safety News as an amusing side project, but it offers a reader a look into the arcane world of ski law, along with one trial lawyer's opinions about it. Chalat's perspective is an interesting one, considering the number of cases he's handled over the years, including that of dancer Chatherine Ulissey in 1994.

Ulissey, a professional ballet dancer, suffered a career-threatening knee injury after a collision with another skier at Snowmass in 1993. A federal court jury awarded Ulissey $2.4 million ...

Chalat noted that in Colorado last year there were 15,000 ski patrol contacts reported. That's out of about 11 million skier days. Of those 15,000 injuries, Chalat said a "very very small percentage" feel they've suffered at the hands of others. And of those, an even smaller percentage of people actually end up in litigation...

Most of those accidents, like the Ulissey case, are between individuals. But there are times when ski areas may be at fault, and that's when the going gets especially tricky.
For the past five years, ski areas in Colorado have operated under a revised Ski Safety Act. That law--at least as originally interpreted--pushes most, if not all, ski area conditions into the "inherent dangers of the sport" category. That interpretation was seen as the virtual death of litigation against ski areas.

But that interpretation of the law got a jolt from the Colorado Supreme Court late last year when the justices ruled for the plaintiff in "Graven vs. Vail..."

Actually, noted Chalat (who was appointed by the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association to work as amicus curiae on the case,-ed.) the court ruled only that the case must go to trial. At issue is whether Vail Associates should have marked a ravine David Graven fell from in 1992. VA argued the change in conditions was part of the "inherent danger of the sport and the case should have been summarily dismissed...

In the latest Ski Safety News, Chalat notes that while resort operators have criticized the decision, there's a lot of evidence that ski areas won't be particularly hurt by it.
Using a report by Professor Charles Goeldner of the University of Colorado Graduate School of Business Administration as evidence, Chalat maintains that not only are Colorado ski areas remarkably profitable (an average of 17 percent per year), but that they buy insurance in a "a highly competitive market..."

Narrowing the definition of "inherent danger" may make ski areas more accountable, argued Chalat. And, noting that state ski areas claim to make every effort to inform skiers about individual responsibilities, he added, "Responsibility should go two ways, don't you think?"

But that sometimes requires holding someone's feet to the fire. And when those feet wear ski boots, Jim Chalat may be the guy you want to do it.

All content © 2003—The Denver Post and may not be republished without permission.