A snowmobile crash two days after layoff tests the limits of onboarding waivers
A Utah court clarified when employer liability waivers can be enforced – and HR teams with seasonal workers should pay attention.
On March 26, 2026, the Utah Supreme Court issued its decision in a case arising from a snowmobile crash, a COVID-era layoff of nearly all staff, and a St. Patrick's Day gathering on the mountain. The ruling narrows a century-old precedent on employer liability waivers and raises practical questions about what happens when former employees are injured on company property after termination.
Here is what happened. William Olson and Lark Pyper were seasonal lift operators at Deer Valley Ski Resort during the 2019–2020 winter season. During onboarding, both signed a liability waiver titled “Release of Liability, Waiver of Claims, Warning, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement,” releasing Deer Valley from liability for injuries sustained while participating in defined “activities” at the resort, including injuries caused by Deer Valley’s negligence. As consideration, they received a free ski pass that allowed them to ski at Deer Valley and several other resorts while off duty. When COVID-19 led the resort to close in March 2020, Deer Valley laid off nearly all staff, including Olson and Pyper.
Two days later, Olson and Pyper returned to the resort to drop off their uniforms. While there, they learned that some former coworkers were hosting a St. Patrick’s Day party on the mountain. A mountain supervisor who was still on duty offered to drive them up on a Deer Valley‑owned snowmobile. He took an unfamiliar shortcut, lost control, and all three were thrown from the snowmobile. Olson and Pyper were seriously injured.
They sued Deer Valley on two fronts. First, they argued the resort was vicariously liable for the supervisor’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Second, they claimed Deer Valley was directly liable for negligently hiring, training, supervising, retaining, and entrusting a vehicle to the employee.
The court ultimately agreed with the district court’s dismissal of the vicarious liability claims. The supervisor testified that he used the snowmobile very little during the season, but when he did, its purpose was to transport employees or take guests up if they missed their lift. That created a factual question about whether the ride was of the general kind of conduct he was employed to perform. However, the court found no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he was motivated, even in part, by serving Deer Valley’s interests when he drove Olson and Pyper. He explained that he gave them a ride because they were his friends, that he knew he was leaving his job duties and breaking resort policy, and that he would not have done it if supervisors had been watching. On this record, the court held that Deer Valley could not be held vicariously liable.
The waiver question required a closer look at older law. The district court had refused to dismiss the direct negligence claims, relying entirely on a 1907 Utah case, Pugmire v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co., which held that an agreement between an employer and employee waiving the employer’s liability for its own negligence was void as against public policy. The Supreme Court disagreed that Pugmire controlled here. It examined that decision and the cases it cited and concluded that Pugmire involved work‑related injuries where the employee was doing work for the employer at the time of the accident. The court confined Pugmire to releases of liability between employers and employees for work‑related injuries. Because Olson and Pyper had been terminated two days earlier and were injured while heading to a social gathering on their personal time, Pugmire did not apply. The court reversed the district court’s ruling on that basis and remanded for consideration of any remaining arguments about how the release agreement applies in this case.
For HR professionals, especially in seasonal and hospitality settings, the decision marks a notable distinction. A waiver employees sign during onboarding may be treated differently depending on whether an injury is work related or arises when individuals are no longer employees and are on the property for personal reasons. The case also highlights that risk does not necessarily end on the day of termination. Olson and Pyper were no longer employees, yet they were back on site, interacting with a current employee and riding on a company vehicle. Offboarding processes that address post‑termination access to property, equipment, and staff may help organizations manage that kind of exposure.
