The Snowmobile Incident and Subsequent Pass Purchase
John Litterer, a Texas man, was struck by an employee operating a snowmobile at Breckenridge Ski Resort in December 2020. He was hit around a blind corner. Litterer had signed a liability waiver when purchasing an Epic Pass for the 2020-21 season, the year of his injury. Complicating the case significantly, he purchased another Epic Pass for the 2022-23 season in November 2022, more than two years after the collision and while his lawsuit against Vail Resorts was still ongoing. When he clicked agree to purchase that second pass, he accepted terms releasing and giving up any and all claims and rights he may have, including anything which had happened up to that point.
Lower Courts' Dismissal and Appeal Path
The Summit County District Court dismissed Litterer's claims, determining that his second Epic Pass purchase waived his right to sue. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed and dismissed the lawsuit in January 2025. The Colorado Supreme Court accepted the case in fall 2025, with fresh consideration given to the 2024 Miller v. Crested Butte ruling that had changed the landscape of ski resort liability waivers.
Miller v. Crested Butte Precedent and Its Impact
In 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Crested Butte that blanket liability waivers do not protect resorts in all cases when customers are injured. That case involved a 16-year-old girl who was paralyzed after falling 30 feet from a chairlift; a jury found the resort negligent for violating state regulations on chairlift safety. The ruling established that ski resorts cannot use liability waivers to sidestep claims arising from violations of state-mandated safety requirements. Litterer's attorney argues the snowmobile driver violated the Colorado Snowmobile Safety Act, meaning the waivers cannot shield Vail Resorts from negligence claims tied to state law violations.
Litterer's Legal Arguments
Litterer's attorney, Trent Ongert, argued during oral arguments that his client did not intend to dismiss his active lawsuit when buying the second Epic Pass and that the waiver language was too broad to be enforced. Ongert contended Litterer was unaware of the complexities of the six-page agreement when he clicked agree. He further argued that any waiver with such broad language should not be allowed to waive negligence claims tied to state laws requiring resort operators to maintain safety standards. Ongert said the case presents a chance to expand or clarify the Miller ruling.
Vail Resorts' Defense and Justices' Questions
Vail Resorts attorney Michael Hofmann argued that the waiver language was clear and that Litterer agreed to waive his existing lawsuit when he bought the second pass. He contended the Epic Pass agreement is not too broad and does not release operators from claims involving gross negligence or violations of state safety laws. Hofmann characterized Colorado as a freedom of contract state that relies on adults to read agreements before signing. During oral arguments, justices focused heavily on whether Litterer should have known what he was signing and whether the issue was contract interpretation or the applicability of the Miller precedent. Some justices questioned whether it was the court's role to make policy rather than apply contract law. 
Answer