Taylor v. Stratton Corporation, The et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 11/30/2011. (law)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
SARAH LAMONT TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE STRATTON CORPORATION
d/b/a, STRATTON MOUNTAIN
RESORT, and INTRAWEST, ULC
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case no. 2:09-cv-297

Memorandum and Order
Defendant Intrawest, ULC’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant Intrawest, ULC (“Intrawest”) previously filed a
Motion to Dismiss, arguing Plaintiff Sarah Lamont Taylor
(“Taylor”) had failed to link Intrawest to the injuries she
suffered while skiing at Stratton Mountain Resort (“Stratton”)
on January 6, 2009.1
No. 13.

Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, May 4, 2010, ECF

Specifically, it had argued Taylor’s complaint failed

to allege Intrawest had management responsibilities at Stratton.
Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, June 15, 2010,
ECF No. 17.

The Court denied the motion, suggesting the parties

could explore Intrawest’s relationship to Stratton during
discovery.

1

Mem. and Order 5, 7.

After discovery, Intrawest

The Court addressed the factual background in its
Memorandum and Order on Intrawest’s Motion to Dismiss, July 9,
2010, ECF No. 18, familiarity with which is assumed.

filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, Sept. 27, 2011, ECF No.
44, which is presently before the Court.

In it, Intrawest

reasserts the argument that it had merely a parent-subsidiary
relationship with Stratton Corporation, that it had limited
management or supervisory responsibilities over operations at
Stratton, and that, as a result, it does not belong in this
case.

Id.; Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J.,

Nov. 28, 2011, ECF No. 50.
The character of Intrawest’s relationship with Stratton
Corporation is clearly contested.

Intrawest relies on

deposition testimony from Stratton employees who were aware of
only a limited oversight role by Intrawest, such as managing
employee benefits and reviewing contracts.

See Mot. for Summ.

J. Att. 1 (Statement of Undisputed Material Facts), at 1-2, ECF
No. 44-1; Id. Exs. 1-4, 6, ECF Nos. 44-2 – 44-5, 44-8.

It also

points out that Stratton’s name and address appear on employee
earnings statements and paychecks.
Nos. 44-6 – 44-7.

Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 5, ECF

Finally, it notes that Taylor’s safety expert

agreed in his deposition with the statement that “[t]here's
nobody or no thing that's responsible for Sarah's incident other
than Stratton.”

Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 7, at 5, ECF No. 44-9.

On the other hand, as of 2003, Intrawest had a 100 percent
equity interest in Stratton Corporation.

Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s

Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 1, at 7, Nov. 2, 2011, ECF No. 47-2.

Additionally, Taylor argues that Intrawest does not merely own
Stratton, but also manages and controls it.
ECF No. 47.

Pl.’s Opp’n 7-9,

She provides evidence that Intrawest held itself

out both to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and
to the public as an operator or manager of its ski resorts.
Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 1, at 6, Ex. 2, at 1, ECF Nos. 47-2 - 47-3.

The

President and COO of Stratton, Sky Foulkes, was listed on
Intrawest’s website as a member of “[t]he Intrawest Resort
Operations Leadership Team.”

Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 6, at 2.

He was

“responsible for the long-term vision of the resort, as well as
the day-to-day management and operations,” and had recently
served in a leadership role at another ski area owned by
Intrawest, Mountain Creek in New Jersey.

Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 6, at

3.
Intrawest also advertises job placements at its resorts,
including openings at Stratton, on its website.
7, ECF No. 47-8.

Pl.’s Opp’n Ex.

It appears to be involved in public relations

and marketing for its various resorts, such as when, in 2008, it
publicized favorable early season snow conditions at its East
Coast ski areas.

Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 8, ECF No. 47-9.

It

represented in SEC filings that it maintains liability insurance
for incidents at its resorts.
47-10.

Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 9, at 9, ECF No.

Taylor also presents evidence that Stratton’s employees
work for Intrawest, meaning the principle of respondeat superior
could render Intrawest liable for their negligent acts.
Opp’n 9-10.

Pl.’s

See Doe v. Forrest, 853 A.2d 48, 54 (Vt. 2004).

Intrawest indicated in SEC filings it had approximately 10,300
year-round employees and 14,500 additional peak-season
employees.

Pl.’s Opp’n Ex 3, at 23, ECF No. 47-4.

Intrawest’s

website describes its Senior Vice President, Mara Pagotto, as in
charge of “all aspects of Human Resources and Employee
Experience for Intrawest’s 22,000 employees worldwide.”
Opp’n Ex. 6, at 3, ECF No. 47-7.

Pl.’s

In a deposition, Stratton’s

assistant ski patrol director testified that he believed his
paychecks and benefits come from Colorado, where Intrawest is
located.

Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 5, at 4, ECF No. 47-6.

Intrawest argues that Taylor failed to dispute several of
the facts on which it relies.

Def.’s Reply 4-5.

That, however,

is not her burden in defending against a motion for summary
judgment.

Taylor has adequately shown there is a dispute over

the material fact of Intrawest’s control over Stratton, and
therefore Intrawest’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this 30th
day of November, 2011.
/s/William K. Sessions III
William K. Sessions III
U.S. District Court Judge

____