Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-213 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 19-418m). Prohibited conduct by skiers

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No skier shall: (1) Intentionally drop, throw or expel any object from a passenger tramway; (2) do any act which shall interfere with the running or operation of a passenger tramway; (3) use a passenger tramway without the permission of the operator; (4) place any object in the skiing area or on the uphill track of a passenger tramway which may cause a skier to fall; (5) cross the track of a J bar lift, T bar lift, platter pull or similar device or a rope tow, except at a designated location; (6) depart from the scene of a skiing accident when involved in the accident without leaving personal identification, including name and address, or before notifying the proper authorities and obtaining assistance when such skier knows that any other skier involved in the accident is in need of medical or other assistance; (7) fail to wear retention straps or other devices used to prevent runaway skis; or (8) fail to close the restraint device except when embarking and disembarking the passenger tramway, as defined in subparagraph (D) of subdivision (1) of section 29-201.

(P.A. 79-629, S. 4; P.A. 14-72, S. 3.)

History: Sec. 19-418m transferred to Sec. 29-213 in 1983; P.A. 14-72 added Subdiv. (8) re failure to close restraint device on certain passenger tramways.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2004 · leading case: Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 849 A.2d 813 (Conn. 2004).
Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 849 A.2d 813 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 4× “Read literally, therefore, § 29-212 simply does not make sense because the two propositions are, without more, simply contradictory to each other.”
Murray v. Taylor, 782 A.2d 702 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 29-213 describes prohibited conduct by skiers.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.