In a published decision of first impression, the Appellate Division held on April 20, 2026 that snow tubing falls within New Jersey's Ski Act, extending the statute's liability framework to tubing operators and ordering the plaintiff's case dismissed with prejudice. For winter recreation operators, their insurers, and injured patrons alike, McGuinniss redraws the map for an entire category of claims.
Background
The plaintiff fractured his collarbone snow tubing at Campgaw Mountain in Bergen County in December 2020 when he struck a rubber deceleration mat that had bunched up in his lane, catapulting him from his tube. He sued the facility's operator. The trial court denied summary judgment, reasoning that the Ski Act did not apply because snow tubing is fundamentally different from skiing: a rider cannot steer or control speed.
The Decision
The Appellate Division reversed. The Ski Act, N.J.S.A. 5:13-1 to -11, applies to skiers and to operators of facilities for skiing and “similar” activities and vehicles. Reading that language in light of the statute's purpose, the court held that a snow tube is a “similar vehicle” within the Act because tubing, like skiing, involves moving over snow-covered terrain and is subject to the same variables and inherent risks of winter sports. The court ordered the complaint dismissed with prejudice.
What It Means for New Jersey Cases
The Ski Act framework differs fundamentally from common law premises liability. It bars recovery for injuries arising from the inherent risks of the sport, imposes statutory responsibilities on patrons, and confines the operator's duties to those enumerated in the Act. McGuinniss imports that entire framework into snow tubing, one of the highest-volume sources of winter recreation claims precisely because it attracts casual, inexperienced participants. Expect the decision's reasoning to be pressed in cases involving other snow-based activities as well.
The statutory risk allocation is the heart of the change. Under the Act, patrons are deemed to assume the inherent risks of moving over snow-covered terrain, and an operator that discharges its enumerated duties is not the insurer of every mishap on the hill. Conditions that would support an ordinary premises claim, an uneven surface, a variation in the snow, the behavior of a deceleration feature, may now be recast as the very risks the participant accepted. The viable claims after McGuinniss will be those tied to an operator's breach of its specific statutory duties rather than to general negligence theories.
How We Put It to Work
In pending and future tubing cases, the threshold questions are now whether the hazard was an inherent risk of the activity and whether the operator satisfied its enumerated statutory duties, and we frame both from the outset, in pleadings, discovery, and dispositive motions. For operator clients, we counsel on maximizing the Act's protections before any claim arrives: conspicuous signage, lane maintenance protocols, and documented daily inspections, because compliance with the statutory duties is what converts McGuinniss from a citation into a dismissal. For anyone evaluating a winter recreation claim on either side, the decision warrants an immediate reassessment of liability theories, case value, and reserves.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Sanchez Maselli Trial Attorneys.