A. A winter sports participant shall be presumed to have known the inherent risks of the winter sport in which he participates, to have fully appreciated the nature and extent of such risks, and to have voluntarily exposed himself to such risks, even if a particular risk was not specifically presented or stated to the participant by the operator. A passenger who uses a passenger tramway with the permission of an operator shall be presumed to have known the risks of winter sports that are applicable to the use of passenger tramways, to have fully appreciated the nature and extent of such risks, and to have voluntarily exposed himself to such risks, even if a particular risk was not specifically presented or stated to the individual by the operator. Such presumption may be rebutted by the participant or passenger by proving that the participant or passenger did not know the particular inherent risk of winter sports that proximately caused the injury or death or damage to property at issue, did not fully appreciate the nature and extent of such risk, or did not voluntarily expose himself to such risk.
§ 8.01-227.19.Assumption of risks.
Chapter 3. Actions · Article 25. Winter Sports Safety Act · Last amended 2012 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceSection 8.01-227.19 presumes that a winter sports participant or tramway passenger knew, appreciated, and voluntarily accepted the inherent risks of the sport even when no one spelled out that particular risk, while making clear the presumption does not cover the operator’s own negligence and can be challenged with evidence.
Full Text of § 8.01-227.19
B. An operator's negligence is not an inherent risk of winter sports, and a participant or passenger is not presumed to have accepted the risk of such negligence and the injuries proximately caused therefrom.
C. In determining if the presumption set forth in subsection A applies in a particular case, whether a particular circumstance or set of circumstances constitutes an inherent risk of winter sports shall be a question of law, and whether the participant or passenger assumed the particular inherent risk of winter sports shall be a question of fact.
D. Nothing herein shall prevent a participant or passenger from offering evidence that he did not know the particular inherent risk of winter sports that proximately caused the injury or death or damage to property at issue, did not fully appreciate the nature and extent of such risk, or did not voluntarily expose himself to such risk.
Plain-English Summary
Subsection A sets a rebuttable presumption: a participant is presumed to have known the inherent risks of the winter sport they take part in, to have fully appreciated the nature and extent of those risks, and to have voluntarily exposed themselves to them, even where the operator never specifically stated a particular risk. The same presumption applies to a passenger who uses a tramway with the operator’s permission, covering the risks that come with tramway use. A participant or passenger can rebut the presumption by proving they did not know the particular risk that proximately caused the injury, did not appreciate its nature and extent, or did not voluntarily expose themselves to it.
Subsection B draws a firm line: an operator’s own negligence is not an inherent risk of winter sports, so a participant or passenger is not presumed to have accepted the risk of that negligence or the injuries it causes. Subsections C and D divide the resulting legal work — whether a given circumstance counts as an inherent risk at all is a question of law for the court to decide, while whether a particular participant or passenger assumed that risk is a question of fact, and either party remains free to offer evidence on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Am I presumed to have accepted the risks of skiing even if no one told me about a specific hazard?
Yes. Section 8.01-227.19(A) presumes a participant knew, appreciated, and voluntarily accepted the inherent risks, even a risk not specifically stated by the operator.
Can a participant challenge the presumption that they assumed a risk?
Yes. The presumption can be rebutted by proving the participant did not know the particular risk, did not appreciate its nature and extent, or did not voluntarily expose themselves to it.
Does assumption of risk cover a ski resort’s own negligence?
No. Section 8.01-227.19(B) states that an operator’s negligence is not an inherent risk of winter sports, so a participant is not presumed to have accepted that risk.
Who decides whether something counts as an inherent risk of winter sports — the judge or the jury?
The court decides that as a question of law; whether the particular participant assumed that risk is a question of fact for the jury.
Does this presumption apply to tramway passengers too, or only to skiers on a trail?
Both. A passenger using a tramway with the operator’s permission is presumed to have accepted the risks that apply to tramway use, just as a participant is presumed to accept the risks of the winter sport itself.
Amendment History
2012, c. 713.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: virginia ski assumption of risk lawcan you sue a ski resort in virginia8.01-227.19 explainedinherent risk presumption virginia winter sportsrebutting assumption of risk virginia skiing