Laid Off But Still Bound: Utah Supreme Court Enforces Pre-Employment Waiver in Deer Valley v. Olson

For the first substantive blog post here, it would have been great to have some sort of landmark Supreme Court opinion dealing with haunted houses. Such was not to be. However, sometimes the more rudimentary case — the one that may affect haunted attraction owners and operators on a more daily basis — is the one that is most pertinent. This latest case from the Utah Supreme Court is just such a case.

The Facts

In a recent case decided March 26, 2026, Deer Valley Resort Co. v. Olson, two former ski resort employees were injured in a snowmobile accident — but the important thing to note is that they were seasonal employees who had been laid off just two days before the accident. They had returned to the resort simply to drop off their uniforms. A current employee was planning to attend a gathering organized by other former employees, and the two former employees joined him, riding on a snowmobile owned by the company. Tragically, the snowmobile crashed and caused serious injuries to both.

One critical piece of background: before they began their employment, both injured parties had signed a release. While it is common for employers and attractions alike to require some form of waiver, this one went further than most — it waived the resort's liability for injuries sustained from activities on resort property including those caused by the resort's own negligence. That kind of provision, one that asks a person to sign away their right to recover even when the other party is at fault, tends to raise eyebrows. And in exchange for all of that? A free ski pass.

It is worth pausing on that eyebrow-raising point. Waivers that cover a party's own negligence are enforceable in many states, but courts scrutinize them more carefully than standard assumption-of-risk language. The general rule is that you can contract away ordinary negligence, but courts tend to require that the intent to do so be expressed clearly and unambiguously — vague or boilerplate language that doesn't specifically call out the releaser's own negligence has gotten waivers thrown out in a number of jurisdictions. There is also a public policy concern: some states have been reluctant to let employers insulate themselves from their own careless conduct, on the theory that it creates bad incentives. Utah was historically one of those states, which is precisely what made this case worth fighting all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Claims

The two injured former employees sued the resort on two grounds:

1. Vicarious liability, based on the current employee's negligence in operating the snowmobile.
2. Direct liability, for the resort's own negligence.

What the Court Decided

At the trial court level, the vicarious liability claims were disposed of on summary judgment in the resort's favor. The reasoning was that the current employee driving the snowmobile was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The direct liability claims, however, survived — not because the court found the waiver unenforceable on its face, but because of a longstanding public policy concern rooted in a 1907 Utah Supreme Court decision, Pugmire v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co., which held that employer-employee agreements waiving liability for employer negligence are void as contrary to public policy.

On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the vicarious liability claims were properly dismissed — there was no factual basis for a jury to find that the current employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment during the snowmobile ride. On the direct liability question, however, the Supreme Court reversed. The court held that Pugmire applies only to releases covering work-related injuries. Because these injuries occurred entirely outside the employment context, the old public policy bar did not apply, and the waiver was enforceable. The case was remanded for consideration of any remaining arguments about the release agreement.

What This Means for Haunt Operators

This case is not about haunted houses. But it carries useful lessons for operators who require employees and guests to sign liability releases — which is standard practice across the industry.

1. The employment context matters. The court drew a clear line between releases waiving liability for work-related injuries (which Utah public policy disfavors) and releases covering recreational or guest-context injuries (which can be enforced). If your haunt has employees sign releases, make sure the scope of those releases is clearly defined — and understand that the rules may differ depending on whether you are releasing employment-related claims or recreational ones.
2. Waivers can survive the end of the employment relationship. The court enforced a pre-employment release even though the injured parties were no longer employees at the time of the accident. A properly drafted release does not necessarily expire when employment ends.
3. Scope of employment still matters for vicarious liability. The vicarious liability claims failed because the employee driving the snowmobile was not acting within the scope of his duties. Operators should think carefully about when and how their employees' off-duty actions could be attributed to the business — and should have clear policies about use of company equipment.
4. If your waiver covers your own negligence, say so clearly. The court ultimately enforced this waiver, but waivers that purport to release a party's own negligence receive greater scrutiny everywhere. If you want that protection — and there are good reasons to — the language needs to be explicit, conspicuous, and unambiguous. Burying it in boilerplate is a recipe for having it thrown out when you need it most.

As always, consult with an attorney licensed in your state before making changes to your legal documents or practices.

Deer Valley Resort Co. v. Olson, 2026 UT 5, Docket No. 20240922 (Utah Mar. 26, 2026).

This post is general legal information, not legal advice. Waiver law is jurisdiction-specific and fact-dependent — consult a licensed attorney in your state before relying on any of the above for your business.