On June 25, 2025, with Boise temperatures in the mid-80s, the Idaho Supreme Court published its opinion in Milus v. Sun Valley Company, a case with the potential to drastically change the winter sports industry in the state. Stemming from an accident in 2019, the wrongful death lawsuit concerned a skier who was tragically killed when he lost control and collided with a snowmaking machine (“Snow Gun 16”) located on Lower River Run at Sun Valley Resort. The action, filed by the wife of the deceased, alleged that Sun Valley failed in its duties as laid out in the Responsibilities and Liabilities of Skiers and Ski Area Operators Act (“Ski Area Liability Act”). Idaho Code §§6-1101 through 6-1109.

Idaho’s Ski Area Liability Act was initially passed in 1979 and provides comprehensive guidance to ski area operators regarding what is expected of them and what risks are assumed by individuals choosing to partake in the sport. Its passage was undoubtedly informed by the 1978 Vermont Supreme Court decision in Sunday v. Stratton Corp., which determined that the owners of Stratton Mountain Resort were negligent in failing to clear brush from a trail and were liable to a skier who was rendered severely disabled from colliding with it. As a defense to the complaint, and without a comprehensive skiing-specific statute to rely on, Stratton alleged that the Plaintiff had assumed the risks of skiing and it should not be held liable for the damages stemming from the accident. Focusing heavily on Stratton’s advertisements that the mountain employed top-of-the-line trail maintenance technology, the Vermont Supreme Court rejected this argument. As a result, Stratton was ordered to pay $1,500,000 in damages.

Idaho’s incentive for adopting such protections for ski area operators is clearly articulated in the Legislative Purpose, §6-1101, of Idaho’s Ski Area Liability Act:

“The legislature finds that the sport of skiing is practiced by a large number of citizens of this state and also attracts a large number of nonresidents, significantly contributing to the economy of Idaho. Since it is recognized that there are inherent risks in the sport of skiing which should be understood by each skier and which are essentially impossible to eliminate by the ski area operation, it is the purpose of this chapter to define those areas of responsibility and affirmative acts for which ski area operators shall be liable for loss, damage or injury, and to define those risks which the skier expressly assumes and for which there can be no recovery.”

Subsequent sections of the act outline that ski area operators must provide notice at the top of the trail when snowmaking is in progress, that all equipment on a trail must have adequate warning signs or notice, and that skiers assume the risks associated with the sport, regardless of safety measures taken.

In Milus, the Plaintiff asserted that Sun Valley had failed to adequately mark Snow Gun 16 with a warning per I.C. § 6-1103(2) and had failed to place a “conspicuous notice” at the top of the trail to alert skiers that snowmaking operations were taking place, per I.C. § 6-1103(6). These arguments, however, were not convincing to the Fifth Judicial District of Idaho, which found that the yellow padding around Snow Gun 16 was an adequate warning and that, because Snow Gun 16 was not in operation at the time of the incident, no notice was required at the top of the trail. The District Court subsequently granted Sun Valley’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Ms. Milus appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, which reversed the granting of summary judgment and addressed the challenges to the Ski Area Liability Act in its December 19, 2023 opinion. In its opinion, the Idaho Supreme Court determined that whether the yellow padding around the Snow Gun 16 was a “warning implement” was a question for a jury, that ski area operators are held to an ordinary prudent person standard of care when carrying out the enumerated sections of §6-1103 (1) through (9), and that a genuine issue of material fact existed on whether Sun Valley had a duty to put a sign up at the top of the trail warning skiers that snowmaking equipment was on the trail. Finally, the Supreme Court determined that Sun Valley must prove that Snow Gun 16 was adequately marked with warnings before it could assert the defense that Mr. Milus has assumed the risk of skiing. The case was remanded to the District Court with instructions for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

In response to the unfavorable result, Sun Valley filed a Petition for Rehearing, which led to the June 25, 2025, opinion. Written by Justice Zahn, the same judge that wrote the 2023 opinion, the Supreme Court stated that following the rehearing, ski area operators are held to an ordinary prudent person standard when undergoing the duties in §6-1103(1) through (9), no genuine issue of material fact existed on whether the yellow padding constituted a warning, a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the placing of the notice at the top of the trail. Most importantly, however, having established that the yellow padding was an adequate warning, Ms. Milus’ claims were barred by I.C. §6-1106 because Mr. Milus had assumed the risk by skiing down a run with a plainly marked snowmaking machine in the trail.

The 2023 decision in Milus sent shockwaves through the ski industry, as ski area operators saw the potential for a steep increase in the amount of insurance needed to protect their business interests and remain open to the public. In the 2022-2023 season, the National Ski Area Association (NSAA) reported 64.7 million skier and rider visits nationwide. Despite the number of individuals who wear helmets having increased from 25% in 2002-03 to 90% in the 2023-24 season, skiing remains an inherently dangerous activity. The NSAA publishes yearly data on injuries, and over the last ten years, an average of forty-one people suffered catastrophic injuries. Over the same time frame, there is an average of forty-two fatalities per season.

 Had the 2023 decision in Milus not been reheard, the potential repercussions throughout the industry are not difficult to conceive. Litigants nationwide would cite Milus to challenge the language of their own state statutes, insurance premiums would skyrocket for ski areas, and that cost would likely be passed on to the consumer, further barring entry into a notoriously high-cost activity. For some independent ski area operators who could not afford that increase in cost, closing their doors to the public or selling to the larger corporations in the industry would be their only options. While the incident that prompted the legal action in Milus v. Sun Valley is truly a tragic event, its success in litigation would have led to drastic changes that would only serve to limit the public’s ability to experience and enjoy the sport of skiing.