In a case decided March 26, 2026, two former seasonal employees of Deer Valley Resort were seriously injured in a snowmobile accident — but the important procedural fact is that they had been laid off just two days before the accident. They had returned to the resort only 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. The snowmobile crashed and caused serious injuries to both.
Before beginning their employment, both injured parties had signed a pre-employment liability 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. In exchange for that broad release, the employees received a free ski pass.
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 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, 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 against public policy — which is precisely what made this case worth litigating all the way to the Supreme Court.
The two injured former employees sued the resort on two grounds: vicarious liability, based on the current employee's negligence in operating the snowmobile; and direct liability, for the resort's own negligence.
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 survived — not because the court found the waiver unenforceable on its face, but because of the longstanding Pugmire public policy bar on employer-employee liability waivers.
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.
Deer Valley Resort Co. v. Olson, 2026 UT 5, Docket No. 20240922 (Utah Mar. 26, 2026).