Willig v. MammothMountain Ski Area
Filed 2/26/10 Willig v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Mono)
----
RAY PATRICK WILLIG et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA, Defendant and Respondent. | C053715 (Super. Ct. No. 14434) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 27, 2010, be modified as follows:
The first paragraph on page 14 is modified to read as follows:
The fatal flaw in his appeal, as we explained above, is plaintiffs inability to translate his tactical decision to plead and prove that the gabion caused his injuries into prejudicial error based on the gross negligence ruling. Nothing in the summary adjudication ruling precluded or foreclosed him from introducing evidence or arguing a different or additional cause of the accident. Indeed, he was allowed to introduce all the evidence he argues on appealthe failure to pre-ski the run, the bare spot, and the failure to check the conditions of the snow and the coverage on St. Antonalbeit in the context of a willful misconduct theory of liability. But plaintiffs theory of liability did not foreclose, as he suggests, his ability to argue an additional cause of the accident. Yet the jury found no causation.
There is no change in the judgment.
Plaintiffs petition for rehearing is denied.
BY THE COURT:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
NICHOLSON , J.
RAYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
