Sufficiency of liability release for ordinary negligence; Skotak v Vic Tanny Int’l, Inc; Inability to contract to release gross negligence liability; Public policy; Lamp v Reynolds; Ski Area Safety Act (SASA) preemption of gross negligence claim; MCL 408.342(2); Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc; Kent v Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court held that the liability release did not bar plaintiffs’ common-law gross-negligence claim and that the SASA does not categorically preempt that claim. Plaintiff alleged he was injured while boarding a ski lift as a volunteer ski patroller after defendants’ employee directed him to load a toboggan at an angle, his ski became trapped, and he fell about 20 feet when the lift was not stopped. He and his wife sued for statutory and common-law theories. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, ruling the release barred the claims and rejecting plaintiffs’ challenges under SASA. On appeal, the court held release was not void as to ordinary negligence, noting that “‘it is not contrary to public policy for a party to contract against liability for damages caused by its own ordinary negligence.’” But defendants could not contract away gross negligence because “a party may not contract against liability for gross negligence,” which is “‘conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.’” The court also held that SASA’s assumption-of-risk framework for “obvious and necessary” dangers did not extinguish a gross-negligence claim predicated on an alleged failure to follow basic lift-loading procedures and to stop the lift when a rider was in danger. It emphasized SASA provides only “some immunity” for ski-area operators rather than total immunity. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.