Maureen Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, Inc

MaureenSoraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, Inc

MaureenSoraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, Inc

MaureenSoraghan, the plaintiff, sued Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, Inc forinjuries sustained in the hotel’s premises. Soraghan had attended arecreational activity at the resort where her daughter was alsoparticipating, he got injured while within the compound. Herdaughter’s ski club had contributed 2,071.58 dollars for her toparticipate in the event (Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, Inc,2005). The girl, though, paid 55 dollars to participate. In additionto being a volunteer, Ms. Soraghan was also a spectator at the skirace and did not incur any charges to attend the event. While withinthe resort, the plaintiff walked between the buildings to collect herski equipment from her car. Accidentally, she fell and injured herknee. She brought suit claiming that the defendant did not maintainthe property in an appropriate manner. The trial court awarded thedefendant’s plea for a summary judgment. The big question: was thedefendant liable for the injuries that Ms. Soraghan sustained duringthe sporting events within the premises?

Thecourt ruling was that the defendant was not liable for the accidentthat happened to Ms. Maureen. The owner did not have a duty of caretowards her and that she was supposed to be responsible for hersafety (Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, Inc, 2005). The onlyduty that the defendant was supposed to perform was to warn in thepresence of danger within the premises, for instance, the presence ofslippery floors.

Thecourt based the claim under the recreational use law, RSA 508:14(1997). It argued that the plaintiff was at the defendant’spremises as a spectator and she had not paid for any considerationfor the event. The defendant was not aware of such a person at thetime of the events since she was not within the registers of the day.Statutes provide that, if there are charges set, then people shouldbe protected. The owner is aware of the presence of such peoplewithin their properties since they are his or her records.

Theeffect that the Soraghan vs. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort brought to thestatutory law relating to premises liability was that the owner,lessee or occupant cannot be held liable for unintentional injuriesin their environments. The claim will only apply if the damage toproperty or personal injury is not intentionally caused by the ownerand when the victim is not subject to special considerations(Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, Inc, 2005). The ruling willapply to private landowners who allow people to use their premisesfor recreational purposes. Thus the private property owner will haveto compensate for any damage when the victim is within the compoundconducting activities to benefit the owner

Italso brought some alterations on the premises liability law. Severallimitations were included to clearly elaborate and define when theprivate owner is fully liable (Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort,Inc, 2005). For instance, if the occupant or the lessee of theproperty does not warn of any danger to the person or guard againstany dangerous situation, he or she would be liable for the injurycaused.

Conclusively,the defendant was not liable for accident incurred by the plaintiffwhile within his premises and the main aim of the statute to relaxsome of the liabilities was to protect entrepreneurs from extortion.They should be in a position allow the general public to use theirpremises without the fear of being sued for injuries. Previously, ithad stated that they had a duty of care towards all those who may bewithin their properties for sporting or recreational purposes.


MaureenSoraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski resort, Inc. 2004-726 (Supreme Court ofNew Hampshire 2005)