Idaho Supreme Court Reverses Decision in Sun Valley Wrongful Death Lawsuit
Popular Stories
Photo: Ski Magazine
In a final decision that brings a sigh of relief to ski areas across the state, the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Sun Valley Resort, dismissing a wrongful death lawsuit that has been navigating the legal system for years. The lawsuit was filed by Laura Milus after her husband tragically died in a collision with a snow gun on the resort’s slopes in 2019.
The case first appeared before a district court, which sided with Sun Valley. The court determined that under Idaho’s ski area liability law, the resort had met its obligations by marking the snowmaking equipment with yellow padding. The court also found that because the snow gun was not actively in use, Sun Valley was not required to place a notice at the top of the trail.
Milus appealed that decision, arguing the court had misinterpreted the law. In a move that sent shockwaves through the state's ski industry in December 2023, the Idaho Supreme Court initially agreed with her, issuing an opinion that a jury should be responsible for evaluating Sun Valley's role in the incident.
This threw a wrench in the long-held legal precedent in Idaho, where skiers are generally held responsible for their own safety when navigating inherent risks of the sport. The ruling created fear among resorts that their legal protections were eroding.
Join Our Newsletter
Following the December opinion, Sun Valley filed for a rehearing. This past Wednesday, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed its own prior ruling and aligned with the original district court, dismissing Milus' lawsuit against the resort.
Justice Cynthia Meyer agreed with the lawsuit's dismissal but she challenged the court's stance on "standard of care," arguing that Idaho's ski liability laws specifically state that an operator is not to be held to "'any standard of care' in accomplishing activities undertaken to eliminate, alter, control, or lessen risks inherent in skiing.”
For now, Idaho’s ski resorts have their liability protections affirmed, but the court has made it clear that a specific set of safety duties must be met, leaving a door open for how resort responsibility will be interpreted in the future.
