Robinette v. Aspen Skiing Company, L.L.C.

363 F. App'x 547
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 25, 2010
Docket19-5085
StatusUnpublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 363 F. App'x 547 (Robinette v. Aspen Skiing Company, L.L.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robinette v. Aspen Skiing Company, L.L.C., 363 F. App'x 547 (10th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

*548 ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

DEANELL REECE TACHA, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Chris Robinette brought this action against Aspen Skiing Company, L.L.C. (“Aspen”) seeking damages for injuries he sustained in a snowboarding accident involving a snowmobile that was operated by an Aspen employee. The district court granted Aspen’s motion for summary judgment because Mr. Robi-nette had entered into an exculpatory agreement with Aspen and had assumed “all risks of skiing/riding.” Mr. Robinette now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, contending that the exculpatory agreement is unenforceable because: (1) it purports to cover reckless conduct; (2) it violates public policy; and (3) its terms are unclear and ambiguous.

Mr. Robinette did not raise a claim of recklessness in the district court; therefore, he cannot do so on appeal absent extraordinary circumstances not present here. McDonald v. Kinder -Morgan, Inc., 287 F.3d 992, 999 (10th Cir.2002). Furthermore, our review of the record, the parties’ appellate materials, and the relevant legal authority compels us to agree with the decision reached by the district court on Mr. Robinette’s remaining claims. Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the district court in its order dated April 23, 2009, we AFFIRM.

**

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

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

Related

Espinoza v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC
809 F.3d 1150 (Tenth Circuit, 2016)
Squires ex rel. Squires v. Goodwin
829 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Colorado, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
363 F. App'x 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinette-v-aspen-skiing-company-llc-ca10-2010.