Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 32
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 15217 (2026)

Skiers' and tramway passengers' responsibilities

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Definitions.  As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.  
A. "Inherent risks of skiing" means those dangers or conditions that are an integral part of the sport of skiing, including, but not limited to: existing and changing weather conditions; existing and changing snow conditions, such as ice, hardpack, powder, packed powder, slush and granular, corn, crust, cut-up and machine-made snow; surface or subsurface conditions, such as dirt, grass, bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, trees and other natural objects and collisions with or falls resulting from such natural objects; lift towers, lights, signs, posts, fences, mazes or enclosures, hydrants, water or air pipes, snowmaking and snow-grooming equipment, marked or lit trail maintenance vehicles and snowmobiles, and other man-made structures or objects and their components, and collisions with or falls resulting from such man-made objects; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design; snowmaking or snow-grooming operations, including, but not limited to, freestyle terrain, jumps, roads and catwalks or other terrain modifications; the presence of and collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski safely, in control or within their own abilities.   [PL 2007, c. 287, §3 (AMD).]
B. "Skiing" means the use of a ski area for snowboarding or downhill, telemark or cross-country skiing; for sliding downhill or jumping on snow or ice on skis, a toboggan, sled, tube, snowboard, snowbike or any other device; or for similar uses of any of the facilities of the ski area, including, but not limited to, ski slopes, trails and adjoining terrain.   [PL 2007, c. 287, §3 (AMD).]
C. "Skier" means any person at a ski area who participates in any of the activities described in paragraph B.   [PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §14 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §17 (AFF).]
D. "Competitor" means a skier actually engaged in competition or a special event or training or practicing for competition or a special event on any portion of the ski area made available by the ski area operator.   [PL 2007, c. 287, §3 (NEW).]
E. "Freestyle terrain" includes, but is not limited to, terrain parks and terrain park features such as jumps, rails, fun boxes and all other constructed or natural features, halfpipes, quarterpipes and freestyle-bump terrain.   [PL 2007, c. 287, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 2007, c. 287, §3 (AMD).]
2.  Acceptance of inherent risks.  Because skiing as a recreational sport and the use of passenger tramways associated with skiing may be hazardous to skiers or passengers, regardless of all feasible safety measures that may be taken, each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts, as a matter of law, the risks inherent in the sport and, to that extent, may not maintain an action against or recover from the ski area operator, or its agents, representatives or employees, for any losses, injuries, damages or death that result from the inherent risks of skiing.  
[PL 2007, c. 287, §3 (AMD).]
3.  Warning notice.  A ski area operator shall post and maintain at the ski area where the lift tickets and ski school lessons are sold and at the loading point of each passenger tramway signs that contain the following warning notice:
WARNING:
Under Maine law, a skier assumes the risk of any injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing and may not recover from any ski area operator for any injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing, including, but not limited to: existing and changing weather conditions; existing and changing snow conditions, such as ice, hardpack, powder, packed powder, corn, crust and slush and cut-up, granular and machine-made snow; surface or subsurface conditions, such as dirt, grass, bare spots, rocks, stumps, trees, forest growth or other natural objects and collisions with such natural objects; lift towers, lights, signs, posts, fences, mazes or enclosures, hydrants, water or air pipes, snowmaking and snow-grooming equipment, marked or lit trail maintenance vehicles and snowmobiles, and other man-made structures or objects; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including, but not limited to, freestyle terrain, jumps, roads and catwalks or other terrain modifications; the presence of and collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski safely, in control or within their own abilities.
 
[PL 2007, c. 287, §3 (AMD).]
4.  Duty to ski within limits of ability.  A skier has the sole responsibility for knowing the range of the skier's own ability to negotiate any slope or ski trail, and it is the duty of the skier to ski within the limits of the skier's own ability, to maintain control of the rate of speed and the course at all times while skiing, to heed all posted and oral warnings and instructions by the ski area operator and to refrain from acting in a manner that may cause or contribute to the injury of the skier or others.  
[PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §14 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §17 (AFF).]
4-A.  Competition and freestyle terrain.  A competitor accepts all inherent risks of skiing and all risks of course, venue and area conditions, including, but not limited to: weather and snow conditions; obstacles; course or feature location, construction and layout; freestyle terrain configuration and condition; collision with other competitors; and other courses, layouts and configurations of the area to be used.  
[PL 2007, c. 287, §3 (NEW).]
5.  Responsibility for collisions.  The responsibility for a collision between any skier while skiing and any person or object is solely that of the skier or skiers involved in the collision and not the responsibility of the ski area operator or its agents, representatives or employees.  
[PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §14 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §17 (AFF).]
6.  Liability.  A ski area operator or its agents, representatives or employees are not liable for any loss, injury, damage or death resulting from the design of the ski area.  
[PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §14 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §17 (AFF).]
7.  Provision of name and current address required.  A skier involved in, causing or contributing to a collision or other accident at a ski area that results in a fall or injury may not leave the vicinity of the collision or accident before giving that skier's name and current address to an employee or representative of the ski area operator or a member of the ski patrol, except for the purpose of securing aid for a person injured in the collision, in which case the person leaving the scene of the collision shall give that skier's name and current address after securing such aid. A ski area operator, or its agents, representatives or employees, is not liable for a skier's failure to provide that skier's name and address or for leaving the vicinity of an accident or collision.  
[PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §14 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §17 (AFF).]
8.  Actions not prohibited.  This section does not prevent the maintenance of an action against a ski area operator for:  
A. The negligent operation or maintenance of the ski area; or   [PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §14 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §17 (AFF).]
B. The negligent design, construction, operation or maintenance of a passenger tramway.   [PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §14 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §17 (AFF).]
[PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §14 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. H, §17 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1995, c. 560, §H14 (NEW). PL 1995, c. 560, §H17 (AFF). PL 2007, c. 287, §3 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1997–2018 · leading case: Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 896 A.2d 265 (Me. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 896 A.2d 265 (Me. 2006). · cites it 11× “She contends that the court erroneously determined that (1) the ski area immunity provided by 32 M.R.S. § 15217 (2005) protects entities that operate snow tubing areas, and (2) Whitcomb’s failure to instruct her about proper snow tubing procedures did not represent the negligent…”
Monica L. Semian v. Ledgemere Transp., Inc., 2014 ME 141 (Me. 2014). · cites it 3× “§ 252(1) (2013); 32 M.R.S. § 15217(2) (2013). 5 For example, Maine’s equine activities statute states: *409 1.”
Zuckerman Ex Rel. Zuckerman v. Coastal Camps, Inc., 716 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 488 (1988) which was replaced by 32 M.R.S.A. § 15217 (Supp.1996), 3 and Merrill v.”
Hansen v. Sunday River Skiway Corp., 1999 ME 45 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “This section shall not prevent the maintenance of an action against a ski area operator for the negligent design, construction, operation or maintenance of a tramway.”
Merrill v. Sugarloaf Mountain Corp., 1997 ME 180 (Me. 1997). · cites it 2× “This section shall not prevent the maintenance of an action against a ski area operator for the negligent design, construction, operation or maintenance of a tramway.”
Merrill v. Sugarloaf Mountain Corp., 2000 ME 16 (Me. 2000). “Except as provided in this section, the responsibility for collisions by any skier while actually skiing, with any person or object, shall be solely that of the skier or skiers involved in collision and not that of the ski area operator. This section shall not prevent the…”
Green v. Sunday River Skiway Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D. Me. 1999). · cites it 16× “These statutes fall into two categories: specific and general.”
Leadbetter v. Fam. Fun Mgmt., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2018). · cites it 5× “Statutory Immunity Defendants argue that plaintiff's injuries were the result of the inherent dangers and risks of snow tubing and recovery is thus barred by Maine's ski liability statute, 32 M.R.S § 15217 (2017). Plaintiff argues that her injury was not caused by a danger…”
Bresnahan v. Bowen, 263 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Me. 2003). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff asserts claims for common-law negligence and violation of 32 M.R.S.A. § 15217 and seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of this collision.”
Bresnahan v. Bowen, 263 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Me. 2003). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff asserts claims for common-law negligence and violation of 32 M.R.S.A. § 15217 and seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of this collision.”
Sutton v. Sunday River Skiway Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2011). · cites it 3× “§ 15217(1)(A), defining the inherent risks of skiing? In fact, 32 M.R.S. § 15217(1)(8)(B) explicitly allows suits such as 2 The statute states: 5 this one providing: "This section does not prevent the maintenance of an action against aski area operator for .”
Menard v. Maine Handicapped Skiing (Me. Super. Ct 2009). · cites it 2× “6 However, the Waiver and Release uses broad language that states volunteers engage "in activities that involve risk of injury ... which might result only from [volunteers] own actions, inactions or negligence of others, the rules of play, or the condition of the premises or any…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 15217(1)(8)(B) — 1 case
Sutton v. Sunday River Skiway Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “§ 15217(1)(A), defining the inherent risks of skiing? In fact, 32 M.R.S. § 15217(1)(8)(B) explicitly allows suits such as 2 The statute states: 5 this one providing: "This section does not prevent the maintenance of an action against aski area operator for .”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 15217(1)(A) — 6 cases
Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 896 A.2d 265 (Me. 2006). “She contends that the court erroneously determined that (1) the ski area immunity provided by 32 M.R.S. § 15217 (2005) protects entities that operate snow tubing areas, and (2) Whitcomb’s failure to instruct her about proper snow tubing procedures did not represent the negligent…”
Green v. Sunday River Skiway Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D. Me. 1999). “These statutes fall into two categories: specific and general.”
Sutton v. Sunday River Skiway Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “§ 15217(1)(A), defining the inherent risks of skiing? In fact, 32 M.R.S. § 15217(1)(8)(B) explicitly allows suits such as 2 The statute states: 5 this one providing: "This section does not prevent the maintenance of an action against aski area operator for .”
Leadbetter v. Fam. Fun Mgmt., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “Statutory Immunity Defendants argue that plaintiff's injuries were the result of the inherent dangers and risks of snow tubing and recovery is thus barred by Maine's ski liability statute, 32 M.R.S § 15217 (2017). Plaintiff argues that her injury was not caused by a danger…”
Menard v. Maine Handicapped Skiing (Me. Super. Ct 2009). “6 However, the Waiver and Release uses broad language that states volunteers engage "in activities that involve risk of injury ... which might result only from [volunteers] own actions, inactions or negligence of others, the rules of play, or the condition of the premises or any…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 15217(1)(B) — 1 case
Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 896 A.2d 265 (Me. 2006). “She contends that the court erroneously determined that (1) the ski area immunity provided by 32 M.R.S. § 15217 (2005) protects entities that operate snow tubing areas, and (2) Whitcomb’s failure to instruct her about proper snow tubing procedures did not represent the negligent…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 15217(2) — 5 cases
Monica L. Semian v. Ledgemere Transp., Inc., 2014 ME 141 (Me. 2014). “§ 252(1) (2013); 32 M.R.S. § 15217(2) (2013). 5 For example, Maine’s equine activities statute states: *409 1.”
Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 896 A.2d 265 (Me. 2006). “She contends that the court erroneously determined that (1) the ski area immunity provided by 32 M.R.S. § 15217 (2005) protects entities that operate snow tubing areas, and (2) Whitcomb’s failure to instruct her about proper snow tubing procedures did not represent the negligent…”
Green v. Sunday River Skiway Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D. Me. 1999). “These statutes fall into two categories: specific and general.”
Bresnahan v. Bowen, 263 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Me. 2003). “Plaintiff asserts claims for common-law negligence and violation of 32 M.R.S.A. § 15217 and seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of this collision.”
Bresnahan v. Bowen, 263 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Me. 2003). “Plaintiff asserts claims for common-law negligence and violation of 32 M.R.S.A. § 15217 and seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of this collision.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 15217(3) — 2 cases
Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 896 A.2d 265 (Me. 2006). “She contends that the court erroneously determined that (1) the ski area immunity provided by 32 M.R.S. § 15217 (2005) protects entities that operate snow tubing areas, and (2) Whitcomb’s failure to instruct her about proper snow tubing procedures did not represent the negligent…”
Monica L. Semian v. Ledgemere Transp., Inc., 2014 ME 141 (Me. 2014). “§ 252(1) (2013); 32 M.R.S. § 15217(2) (2013). 5 For example, Maine’s equine activities statute states: *409 1.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 15217(4) — 3 cases
Bresnahan v. Bowen, 263 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Me. 2003). “Plaintiff asserts claims for common-law negligence and violation of 32 M.R.S.A. § 15217 and seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of this collision.”
Bresnahan v. Bowen, 263 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Me. 2003). “Plaintiff asserts claims for common-law negligence and violation of 32 M.R.S.A. § 15217 and seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of this collision.”
Menard v. Maine Handicapped Skiing (Me. Super. Ct 2009). “6 However, the Waiver and Release uses broad language that states volunteers engage "in activities that involve risk of injury ... which might result only from [volunteers] own actions, inactions or negligence of others, the rules of play, or the condition of the premises or any…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 15217(6) — 1 case
Leadbetter v. Fam. Fun Mgmt., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “Statutory Immunity Defendants argue that plaintiff's injuries were the result of the inherent dangers and risks of snow tubing and recovery is thus barred by Maine's ski liability statute, 32 M.R.S § 15217 (2017). Plaintiff argues that her injury was not caused by a danger…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 15217(8) — 2 cases
Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 896 A.2d 265 (Me. 2006). “She contends that the court erroneously determined that (1) the ski area immunity provided by 32 M.R.S. § 15217 (2005) protects entities that operate snow tubing areas, and (2) Whitcomb’s failure to instruct her about proper snow tubing procedures did not represent the negligent…”
Green v. Sunday River Skiway Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D. Me. 1999). “These statutes fall into two categories: specific and general.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 15217(8)(A) — 2 cases
Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 896 A.2d 265 (Me. 2006). “She contends that the court erroneously determined that (1) the ski area immunity provided by 32 M.R.S. § 15217 (2005) protects entities that operate snow tubing areas, and (2) Whitcomb’s failure to instruct her about proper snow tubing procedures did not represent the negligent…”
Leadbetter v. Fam. Fun Mgmt., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “Statutory Immunity Defendants argue that plaintiff's injuries were the result of the inherent dangers and risks of snow tubing and recovery is thus barred by Maine's ski liability statute, 32 M.R.S § 15217 (2017). Plaintiff argues that her injury was not caused by a danger…”
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.