The majority of skiers have signed a specific kind of document without reading it. It comes packaged with the Epic Pass purchase, tucked away in the online checkout process, and presented in the kind of fine print that no one pretends to read before clicking “accept.” the release from obligation.
The few sentences that, in theory, transfer the consequences of practically any mountain catastrophe from the resort to the customer. In Litterer v. Vail Resorts, the Colorado Supreme Court is currently debating whether or not those waivers truly do what skiers have long believed they do. The decision, which is expected to be rendered within the next nine months, has the potential to subtly alter the legal underpinnings of an entire industry.
| Litterer v. Vail Resorts — Case Snapshot | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | John Litterer |
| Defendant | Vail Resorts |
| Location of Incident | Breckenridge Ski Resort |
| Year of Incident | 2020 |
| Cause of Injury | Struck by an employee on a snowmobile |
| Pass Held | Epic Pass |
| Subsequent Pass Purchase | 2022-23 season, after lawsuit filed |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
| Argument Date | April 16, 2026 |
| Key Legal Question | Enforceability of broad liability waivers |
| Precedent Case | Crested Butte chair lift case (paralyzed teen) |
| Defense Position | Waivers signed during pass purchase bar the lawsuit |
| Plaintiff’s Position | Waivers are overly broad and unenforceable |
| Typical Ruling Window | Within 9 months of oral argument |
The factual background has an odd order and a straightforward outline. According to his lawsuit, John Litterer, an Epic Pass holder, was hit by a Vail Resorts employee operating a snowmobile while he was at Breckenridge in 2020. He filed a lawsuit. He then signed the identical waiver language he had signed prior to the accident when renewing his Epic Pass for the 2022–2023 season, a detail that has caught the attention of court watchers.
The second purchase has been a major point of contention for the lawyers representing Vail Resorts. They contend that the plaintiff accepted the terms of the waiver twice and that the waiver should be interpreted to prohibit the same type of action Litterer is currently pursuing. The legal reasoning will be familiar to anyone who has worked on consumer contract matters. In general, repeated voluntary acceptance is seen as compelling proof of informed consent. No matter how many times it was signed, Litterer’s lawyers contend that the waiver is too general to be enforced in court.
Litterer’s argument is architecturally intriguing because of the 2024 Crested Butte instance. In a case involving a teenager who was paralyzed after falling from a chair lift, the Colorado Supreme Court decided two years ago that the resort was not shielded from liability by a blanket disclaimer. According to the court’s reasoning in that ruling, resorts cannot be shielded from responsibility where relevant safety laws or regulations have been broken by liability waivers.
The ruling was interpreted by many as a significant reduction in the scope of resort waivers. During the oral arguments on April 16, Litterer’s lawyers contended that a snowmobile collision involving a resort employee follows the same reasoning. They argued that the waiver should not prevent the matter from going to a jury if there were violations of statutory or regulatory safety duties.
What would happen if Litterer wins is what sets this case apart from a standard litigation involving the ski industry. For many years, the Colorado ski business, like the larger sector in the Rocky Mountain West, has relied on uniform waiver language. The waiver is a component in the structure of the company. Resorts base their ticket and pass prices on the idea that their exposure to liability is significantly reduced.
The same premise is used by insurance underwriters to determine premiums. The business models of big operators, such as Vail Resorts and Alterra Mountain Company, as well as the other independent resorts throughout the state, may be seriously threatened if the Colorado Supreme Court extended the Crested Butte reasoning to the operational behavior of resort personnel. Everyone in the courtroom seemed to understand that the stakes go far beyond a single snowmobile crash based on the way the lawyers on both sides presented their cases.
It is important to pay attention to the cultural context. Over the past ten years, the Epic Pass in particular has changed how Americans ski. Vail Resorts has turned skiing into a subscription service by combining access to dozens of resorts into a single seasonal purchase. Millions of skiers each year consent to waiver conditions they have never read, frequently during a hurried checkout the night before a trip, despite the pass model’s simplicity.
Anyone who has spent a Saturday morning standing in a base village rental shop knows how commonplace the transaction has become. The waiver is no longer physically signed at a service desk. On the way to the elevator, there is a digital click. In consumer protection legislation, the topic of how much legal weight such a click should carry has been quietly developing for years.
There is logic in the defensive argument. The lawyers representing Vail Resorts have forcefully emphasized that the waivers are written in plain language, prominently posted, and accepted by each and every Epic Pass holder at the time of purchase. They contend that the legal foundation of a waiver depends on people’s capacity to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the actions they perform. There are risks associated with skiing.
The allocation of those risks is reflected in the pass’s price. The entire basis of the leisure sector would have to be reconstructed from the ground up if the waivers might be revoked anytime a judge deems them to be overly expansive. That argument has a genuine dialogue. The amount of risk allocation that Colorado law permits resorts to impose on guests through contract language will need to be considered by the court.
