A federal judge has denied Big Boulder’s bid for summary judgement, ruling that the snowboarding accident lawsuit has to go to trial.

U.S. District Judge James Munley recently denied Big Boulder Corp.’s motion for summary judgement, ruling that plaintiff James A.’s snowboarding accident lawsuit has to go to trial, according to Law360. In his ruling, Pennsylvania Judge Munley stated that there are questions of where personal responsibility for the snowboarder ended and where alleged negligence for the resort began.

The Jack Frost/Big Boulder resort in Lake Harmony, Pa. is a massive skiing and snowboarding resort. The Big Boulder Ski Area was built in 1942 as a company retreat for a nearby coal mining company. It was later converted to a commercial ski resort, the first ever in the state of Pennsylvania.

In 1956, the resort saw another historic landmark when they perfected the snowmaking machine in a commercial application. In 1972, the Jack Frost Ski Area was built as a companion resort to Big Boulder and the two are known as Jack Frost/Big Boulder (JFBB) Resorts. The resorts offer skiing and snowboarding trails of varying difficulties as well as dining and other amenities.

James injured his leg in a crash at the Big Boulder resort in Pennsylvania and filed his complaint in 2017. In his snowboarding accident lawsuit, James claims that the resort did not properly mark a trail as closed, resulting in him snowboarding on the closed trail and crashing into snowmaking equipment.

According to the ruling, the court found it significant that the trail James crashed on was allegedly closed at the time of the incident. The record reportedly indicated that reasonable persons could differ on whether James knew the trail was closed and understood the added risks that come with snowboarding down a closed trail.

Judge Munley reportedly applied “a subjective standard, asking what the plaintiff himself knew and understood prior to snowboarding down the trail at Big Boulder,” the memorandum states. “The record clearly demonstrates that there are material questions of fact surrounding whether the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk of colliding into snowmaking equipment.”

In their motion for summary judgement, Big Boulder argued that James’ injuries were a result of the normal risks of snowboarding. However, Judge Munley stated that Big Boulder failed to establish that the risks inherent to snowboarding caused James’ injuries. The court found that “the simple fact that snowmaking equipment is essential to the sport is insufficient on its own to establish that collision with such equipment is a common, frequent and expected risk”. A trial for the snowboarding accident lawsuit will help establish facts necessary for a ruling.

According to the National Ski Areas Association, there are frequent injuries that result from skiing and snowboarding. However, despite the dangerous nature of the sports, there are relatively few causalities and catastrophic injuries. Over the past 10 years, there have reportedly been an average of 41.5 causalities a year. Catastrophic injuries, including paralysis and serious head injuries, have occurred at an average of 44.7 per year.

The Snowboarding Accident Lawsuit is Case No. 3:17-cv-00104 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.