In Katherine Birl v. Ski Shawnee Inc, No. 25-1070 (3d Cir. January 2, 2026), the parents and natural guardians of minor G.B., appealed the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to Ski Shawnee, concerning injuries suffered by their minor son.
Following injuries sustained while snowboarding, Appellants sued Ski Shawnee, who moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was barred under the Pennsylvania Skier Responsibility Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(c) (“PSRA”). The District Court granted the motion, finding that the risks involved in Appellants’ claim were inherent to the sport of snowboarding and thus barred by the PSRA. The Third Circuit held that the District Court did not err in finding that the PSRA barred the Appellants’ claim. The enactment of the PSRA preserved the assumption of risk defense for suits that arise from a skiing injury and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that under the PSRA, a ski resort has no duty to protect skiers from risks that are “inherent” to the sport of downhill skiing.
Despite this, Appellants argued that if a ski resort deviates from established industry standards when designing a jump, the defective design is not an inherent risk to the sport of skiing. They further alleged that Ski Shawnee deviated from established industry standards by failing to consult with the National Ski Area Association (“NSAA”) Freestyle Terrain Resource Guide when designing their terrain park.
Finding that a ski resort has no duty to place a jump “in a way that minimizes the potential for [snowboarders] to lose control” and that such a risk was inherent to the activity, The Third Circuit affirmed.