A teenager and her mother, both from Houston, are allowed to sue the operator of a Snowmass Village dogsled track for injuries they sustained in 2019, a federal judge has decided.

Krabloonik, Inc. had asked U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martínez to find that Timothy Sturm, Sandra Sturm and their then-15-year-old daughter, Holly Sturm, had released the company from liability by signing a pre-ride agreement that outlined in detail the risks of dogsledding. Although Martínez agreed that Sandra had properly signed the waiver and would have to forfeit the majority of her claims, Timothy had not plainly entered into the waiver on his daughter’s behalf.

“No name — let alone Holly’s — appears in the clearly marked space provided to identify the minor whose claims are being released,” the judge wrote in a June 16 order.

According to the Sturms’ lawsuit, Sandra and Holly were dogsled passengers on March 11, 2019 when musher Josef Weber fell off and left the mother and daughter on a “runaway sled.” The sled then crashed into a tree, causing fractures in Holly’s leg and medical bills in excess of $25,000.

“Defendant Krabloonik continues to conceal the true dangerous nature of dog sledding and the potential injuries and other risks,” the Sturms wrote in their complaint. The Sturms accused the company of negligence, negligent misrepresentation causing harm and violating the Colorado Premises Liability Act. Weber is also named as a defendant.

In response, the defendants pointed to the document Timothy and Sandra signed prior to the dogsled ride. Its title, in bold, capitalized letters, was “PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT, RELEASE AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK.” The release asked riders to acknowledge there were physical risks to dogsledding, and their signature could mean Krabloonik had no liability for their injuries.

Dogs acting unpredictably, a loss of control, collisions, inclement weather, hypothermia, avalanches, accidents, and distance from emergency medical treatment were all explicitly listed as risks in dogsledding.

“We did not realize,” Holly and Sandra wrote in a statement included in the lawsuit, “nor were we told, that we would be going at a high rate of speed down steep grades with a musher who could lose control of the sled, fall off the sled, and send us on a runaway sled which crashed into trees. None of the inherent dangers …. was conveyed to us.”

The Sturms contended Krabloonik should be held responsible for choosing not to use a “track braking system” on its dogsleds, and for failing to prevent out-of-control dogsleds. They pointed to a 2013 lawsuit against the company, settled for $1 million, in which a North Carolina couple slammed into a tree after being ejected from a moving dogsled.

Krabloonik countered that it had discontinued its use of the trail section where the prior accident occurred. It also maintained the Sturms’ expectation of a “leisurely” dogsled ride was unreasonable.

“Plaintiffs’ allegations rest entirely on 1) their own subjective assumptions; or 2) conditions expressly discussed and addressed in the Release,” wrote lawyers for the defendants.

Of the various claims in the Sturms’ lawsuit, Martínez found Sandra could go forward with only one, alleging negligence. Under Colorado law, the type of release agreement she signed was a valid waiver of liability unless the defendants’ conduct was “willful and wanton.”

Martínez believed there was one allegation in the lawsuit that could fall into that category: the claim that Krabloonik puts “profits over safety by deliberately choosing to continue dog sledding trips on unsafe terrain and in unsafe weather conditions.”

“Though this allegation is relatively thin,” he wrote, “it is sufficient to plead willful and wanton conduct.”

For Holly, Martínez explained that the line in the release agreement meant for Holly’s name was blank. Strangely, in the signature line for Holly’s parent or guardian, Timothy had written “Timothy Whitney Holly.” There was no explanation of who Whitney was.

Because Timothy had not effectively released Krabloonik from any liability claims on his daughter’s behalf, Martínez allowed Holly’s portion of the lawsuit to proceed.

The judge permitted the defendants to file by July 15 a motion for summary judgment, meaning Martínez might decide the case without a jury trial if the key undisputed facts favor Krabloonik and Weber under the law.

The case is Sturm et al. v. Weber et al.