The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday issued a 4-3 decision that further defines the limits of the liability waivers ski resorts require customers to sign when buying passes.

Justice Maria Berkenkotter wrote the majority opinion in John Litterer v. Vail Resorts, upholding the lower court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit brought by a Texas man who claims he was hit by an employee on a snowmobile at Breckenridge Ski Resort.

Berkenkotter ruled that Litterer voided his lawsuit when he signed a liability waiver stating that he would dismiss any existing claims against Vail Resorts when he purchased an Epic Pass to return to skiing after the snowmobile injury.

“Litterer electronically signed the waiver, which was a condition of using the ski pass at a (Vail Resorts’) resort during the 2022-23 ski season. In doing so, Litterer unambiguously agreed to ‘waive any and all claims’ to access (Vail Resorts’) resorts during the 2022-23 ski season,” Berkenkotter wrote. “What’s more, because a party who signs a contract is presumed to know its contents, Litterer could not avoid his contractual obligations by claiming he didn’t read the agreement.”

Litterer sued Vail Summit Resorts Inc., a subsidiary of Vail Resorts, which owns the Epic Pass, six ski resorts in Colorado and dozens across the U.S. and the world, in state court in 2022. He claims he was hit by an employee driving a snowmobile around a “blind corner” at Breckenridge in 2020.

What complicated the case was that Litterer twice clicked through online waivers agreeing he would not sue Vail Resorts: First, when he purchased the Epic Pass for the 2020-21 season, the year he was injured; then, when he purchased an Epic Pass for the 2022-23 season after he had recovered enough to snowboard and while his litigation was still ongoing.

The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear Litterer’s case after the Summit County District Court and Colorado Court of Appeals had both dismissed it, determining that Litterer gave up his claims to sue when he signed the liability waiver during his second pass purchase.

Chief Justice Monica Márquez, Justice Brian Boatright and Justice Susan Blanco joined Berkenkotter’s majority opinion.

Marquez in the ruling distinguishes Litterer’s case from the Colorado Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Miller v. Crested Butte. That decision, handed down by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2024, found that blanket waivers do not protect resorts in cases when a customer is injured while the resort is violating state safety laws or regulations such as the Ski Safety Act or Passenger Tramway Safety Act.

Marquez in the majority opinion states that the Miller ruling “governs the validity of exculpatory agreements executed prior to an injury,” but Litterer’s case is different because it “concerns a post-injury release.”

Justice Richard Gabriel, joined by Justice William Hood III and Justice Carlos Samour, dissented, writing that the majority’s decision was “unjust and will result in manifest injustice to innumerable unsuspecting ski pass purchasers like him.”

Gabriel in the dissent also disagrees with the majority’s conclusion that the liability waiver Litterer electronically signed “did not operate as an exculpatory agreement because Litterer purchased his Epic Pass after and not before he was injured.” He said the majority opinion ignores most of the language in the liability waiver, which was “forward-looking and purported to exculpate Vail Resorts,” instead focusing on one sentence.

“Under today’s ruling, the ski industry may avoid a limitless range of liability … by burying exceptionally broad release language in the click-through, lengthy boilerplate document that unwitting patrons check off when they buy their ski pass,” Gabriel wrote in the dissent.