Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P.

931 A.2d 630
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedAugust 29, 2007
StatusPublished

This text of 931 A.2d 630 (Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 931 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2007).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2007, the Petition for Alowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity are:

1. Whether the Superior Court erred in holding an exculpatory agreement whereby a skier assumes the risk of skiing regardless of negligence must define negligence and illustrate negligence by example.

2. Whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Nissley v. Candytown Motorcycle Club, 913 A.2d 887 (Pa.Super.2006), on the issue of validity and enforceability of an exculpatory agreement.

3. Whether the Superior Court erred in addressing the conspicuousness of the release of whether there was a contract of adhesion because these issues were not raised by respondent at the trial court or on appeal.

4. Whether the Superior Court erred in failing to affirm the trial court on the grounds that injuries incurred while boarding a ski lift are inherent to the sport and that respondent assumed the risk as a matter of law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nissley v. Candytown Motorcycle Club, Inc.
913 A.2d 887 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
931 A.2d 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chepkevich-v-hidden-valley-resort-lp-pa-2007.