A recent appellate court decision clarified that state law governing ski area operations also covers snow tubing, affecting claims of liability when injuries occur during such activities. The ruling is significant for both recreational participants and operators, as it sets precedent on how legal protections and responsibilities are applied in snow tubing incidents.
The complaint was filed by Martin McGuinniss and his spouse Jamie McGuinniss in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, against Ski Campgaw Management LLC, Ski Blue Hills Management LLC, Campgaw Mountain Ski Area, and Bergen County. The Appellate Division issued its opinion on April 20, 2026.
According to the court’s opinion delivered by Judge Berdote Byrne, the dispute arose from an incident on December 29, 2020. On that day, Martin McGuinniss went snow tubing with his family at a site operated by Ski Campgaw Management LLC. The snow tubing hill featured several lanes divided by berms of snow and included rubber deceleration mats intended to slow down riders. Employees were stationed at both the top and bottom of the hill and communicated via radios.
Before participating in snow tubing, McGuinniss signed a release agreement acknowledging that “SNOW TUBING IS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY” and agreeing not to sue for injuries sustained. During his final run—after descending headfirst rather than sitting upright—McGuinniss struck what he described as a bunched-up deceleration mat approximately “20 or 30 feet” ahead of him. He testified that he was moving too fast to stop upon noticing the hazard and was “catapulted off [of the tube] and landed on [his] left shoulder,” resulting in a comminuted fracture of his clavicle.
After leaving Campgaw without notifying staff immediately about his injury or the condition of the mat, McGuinniss later returned to file an incident report after consulting with a lawyer. Discovery revealed forty-five prior incidents involving snow tubers and deceleration mats over two previous winter seasons at Campgaw; however, there was no evidence presented regarding whether any involved bunched-up mats.
The plaintiffs alleged common law negligence and breach of statutory duties under New Jersey’s Ski Act (N.J.S.A. 5:13-1 to -11), including claims related to ownership, operation, maintenance, inspection of premises or equipment, and loss-of-consortium for Jamie McGuinniss. Expert reports were submitted by both parties: Campgaw’s expert characterized deceleration mats as necessary equipment for ordinary ski area operation; plaintiff’s expert argued there was unreasonable risk but did not address applicability of the Ski Act directly due to his belief it did not cover snow tubing.
The trial court initially found that the Ski Act did not apply to snow tubing because participants lack control mechanisms similar to those used in skiing or sledding. As a result, summary judgment motions by defendants were denied for most claims except those against Bergen County alone.
On appeal—remanded from the New Jersey Supreme Court—the Appellate Division conducted an analysis of legislative intent behind the Ski Act. The court concluded that “the Legislature intended the Ski Act to apply to snow tubing activities,” interpreting statutory definitions broadly enough to include devices like snow tubes as “similar vehicles.” The opinion stated: “snow tuber is included in the definition of ‘skier’ within the Ski Act because a snow tube is a ‘similar vehicle’ within the meaning of those statutory definitions.” The panel also rejected arguments that lack of steering or braking mechanisms made snow tubes fundamentally different from other covered vehicles such as sleds or toboggans.
Turning to liability standards under N.J.S.A. 5:13-3(a), which require operators only remove “obvious man-made hazards” if they have actual or constructive notice and reasonable time to correct them, the court found insufficient evidence that Campgaw had such notice regarding any hazardous condition posed by bunched-up mats before McGuinniss’s accident. The opinion noted: “plaintiff has not presented any genuine issue of material fact … requiring removal pursuant to statute.”
Furthermore, while exculpatory agreements attempting to waive statutory duties are unenforceable under public policy—a point conceded by defendant—the application of statutory protections meant plaintiff could not proceed with common law negligence claims once it was determined that only remedies under the Ski Act were available.
The appellate panel reversed denial of summary judgment for defendant Campgaw on all remaining claims and remanded for dismissal with prejudice. Attorneys representing appellants were Samuel J. McNulty (Hueston McNulty PC) with Edward J. Turro on brief; respondents were represented by Timothy J. Foley (Davis Saperstein & Salomon PC; Foley & Foley) with Matthew A. Schroeder also on brief. The case is identified as Docket No. A-0058-25.
Source: A005825_McGuinniss_v_Ski_Campgaw_Management_LLC_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
