Hoodoo Ski Area, OR, Sued for $4.6 Million, Further Deepening the State’s Liability Insurance Crisis

A $4.6 million lawsuit against Hoodoo Ski Area has added fresh pressure on Oregon’s ski industry, which is already facing a storm of legal and financial challenges. The case was filed on behalf of a 4-year-old girl who suffered a concussion and multiple broken bones after another skier crashed into her in Hoodoo’s terrain park in March 2021.

According to the case, resort staff had removed a rope barrier about 30 minutes before closing, which allowed skiers to enter the terrain park partway down the hill. Attorneys for the girl argue that if the barriers had remained in place, the collision would never have happened. The lawsuit claims the resort failed in its duty to manage skier flow and ensure that people entered the terrain park only through its designated top entrance, where safety signs and warnings were posted. The girl’s injuries have required multiple complex surgeries, generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, and will likely necessitate more procedures in the future.

• Related: Hoodoo, OR, Backcountry Report: Thankful for a Deep Base

Bigger Ramifications

While this lawsuit centers on one child’s devastating injuries, it also underscores a much bigger issue for Oregon’s ski industry: a surge in litigation that threatens the financial viability of mountain operations. The case against Hoodoo is just one of many that have been filed since the Oregon Supreme Court’s 2014 Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor ruling, which struck down blanket liability waivers that once protected ski areas from being sued for ordinary negligence. In the decade before Bagley, Hoodoo had been sued only twice, winning both cases. In the years since, it has faced five lawsuits, settling two and winning two others. Similar cases have cropped up across the state, making Oregon one of the riskiest legal climates for recreation operators in the West.

This wave of litigation has created major complications for ski resorts trying to secure liability insurance. Earlier this year, Safehold Special Risk, one of only two insurers covering Oregon ski areas, announced it would exit the state entirely. Safehold, which still insures resorts in 37 other states, cited Oregon’s legal environment as the driving factor. That decision left just one company, MountainGuard, willing to write policies for ski areas in Oregon. The loss of competition has driven up costs and heightened uncertainty, with resorts warning that another large claim could destabilize the market entirely. Jordan Elliott, president of the Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association highlighted the significance of the recent Hoodoo case. “With only one carrier left, every major case raises the risk of higher costs or even the loss of coverage altogether,” he told The Oregonian.

Lawmakers attempted to address the issue earlier this year with Senate Bill 1196, which would have allowed liability waivers to remain enforceable for ordinary negligence while still permitting lawsuits in cases of gross negligence or reckless conduct. Supporters argued it was a balanced solution that would bring Oregon back in line with other Western states, where outdoor industries operate under more predictable legal standards. But despite bipartisan support, the bill never reached a vote before the session ended in June.

• Related: Oregon’s Legislative Session Ends With No Change to Liability Protections for Ski Areas

Industry leaders warn that soaring insurance costs and rising lawsuits are pushing Oregon ski resorts toward a breaking point, with closures a real possibility if laws don’t change. Resort operators say reform is needed to keep coverage affordable, while opponents argue that limiting lawsuits would strip away vital consumer protections and restrict justice for the injured.

The Hoodoo lawsuit brings these tensions into sharp focus. On one hand, it represents a family seeking accountability after a young child suffered severe, life-changing injuries. On the other, it embodies the kind of case that could further destabilize an already fragile insurance market and threaten the survival of Oregon’s ski industry while causing lasting damage to an economy that relies heavily on its reputation for natural beauty and year-round recreation.