Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 143, § 71P (2026)

Actions against ski area operators; limitations

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 71P. For the purpose of sections seventy-one I to seventy-one R, inclusive, in any action brought against a ski area operator based on negligence, it shall be evidence of due care where the conduct of an operator has conformed with the provisions of this chapter or rules or regulations of the board made pursuant to section seventy-one J.

No action shall be maintained against a ski area operator for injury to a skier unless as a condition precedent thereof the person so injured shall, within ninety days of the incident, give to such ski area operator notice, by registered mail, of the name and address of the person injured, the time, place and cause of the injury. Failure to give the foregoing notice shall bar recovery, unless the court finds under the circumstances of the particular case that such ski area operator had actual knowledge of said injury or had reasonable opportunity to learn of said injury within said ninety-day period, or was otherwise not substantially prejudiced by reason of not having been given actual written notice of said injury within said period. In a case where lack of written notice, actual knowledge, or a reasonable opportunity to obtain knowledge of any injury within said ninety-day period is alleged by such ski area operator, the burden of proving substantial prejudice shall be on the operator.

An action to recover for such injury shall be brought within one year of the date of such injury.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1983–2001 · leading case: Grass v. Catamount Dev. Corp., 457 N.E.2d 627 (Mass. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Grass v. Catamount Dev. Corp., 457 N.E.2d 627 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 8× “We consider whether an action for wrongful death arising out of injury to a skier and brought against the operator of a ski area is governed by the limitation of actions provision of G. L. c. 143, § 71P, dealing with actions against ski area operators, or by the limitation of…”

Atkins v. Jiminy Peak, Inc., 514 N.E.2d 850 (Mass. 1987). · cites it 10× “In her original complaint, filed on December 5, 1984, the plaintiff alleged that on March 20, 1982, she sustained serious injuries while skiing at the defendant's ski resort, and that those injuries were caused by defective ski equipment she had rented from the rental facility…”

Commonwealth v. Chapman, 744 N.E.2d 14 (Mass. 2001). “551, 554 (1983) (G. L. c. 143, § 71P, imposing two-year statute of limitations on personal injury claims against ski area operators); Zeroulias v.”

Kromhout v. Commonwealth, 500 N.E.2d 789 (Mass. 1986). “551, 554 (1983) (in the context of G.L.c. 143, § 71P). Numerous statutes incorporate the term "injury or death" or a similar expression, when the Legislature intends that they should apply to claims for wrongful death as well as to claims for injuries not resulting in death.”

Tilley v. Brodie Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 591 N.E.2d 202 (Mass. 1992). “So, too, in this case there is nothing in the statutory scheme of G. L. c. 143, § 71H-71S, that indicates a legislative intent to insulate the ski area operation from liability for the negligence of its agents or employees.”

Tidgewell v. Loon Mountain Rec. Corp., 820 F. Supp. 630 (D. Mass. 1993). “Statute of Limitations Because plaintiff filed this action more than one year from the date of his injury, defendant contends that the action is barred by Mass.Gen.L. ch. 143 § 71P, which provides a one-year statute of limitations for actions against ski area operators.”

Spinale v. Pam F., Inc., 1995 Mass. App. Div. 140 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1995). “G.L.c. 143, §71P; Atkins v. Jiminy Peak, Inc.”

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.