An operator's or participant's failure to abide by or fulfill a duty or responsibility under this article shall not constitute negligence per se.
§ 8.01-227.22.Failure to fulfill duty or responsibility not negligence per se.
Chapter 3. Actions · Article 25. Winter Sports Safety Act · Last amended 2012 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceSection 8.01-227.22 makes clear that an operator’s or participant’s failure to meet a duty under the Winter Sports Safety Act does not, by itself, count as negligence per se in a lawsuit.
Full Text of § 8.01-227.22
Plain-English Summary
This provision is short but does real work given how many specific, checklist-style duties the article imposes on operators and participants alike. Falling short of one of those duties — a sign posted the wrong way, a participant skiing beyond their ability, or any of the other requirements scattered through §§ 8.01-227.12 through 8.01-227.18 — does not automatically establish negligence.
A plaintiff still has to prove negligence under ordinary principles; the statutory violation is evidence a court or jury can weigh, not a finding of fault that follows on its own.
Frequently Asked Questions
If a ski resort fails to post a required warning sign, is that automatically negligence under Virginia law?
No. Section 8.01-227.22 states that failing to fulfill a duty under the article is not negligence per se.
Does this rule apply to participants as well as operators?
Yes. It covers a failure by either an operator or a participant to abide by or fulfill a duty under the article.
What does negligence per se mean in this context?
It refers to a legal doctrine under which violating a statute automatically counts as negligence without further proof; § 8.01-227.22 blocks that doctrine from applying to violations of this article’s duties.
Does § 8.01-227.22 mean a violation of the article is irrelevant to a negligence claim?
No. It only means the violation is not automatic proof of negligence; it can still be considered as part of an ordinary negligence case.
Why would the legislature include a provision like this given all the specific duties in the article?
Because the article lists many precise duties for both operators and participants, and treating any lapse as automatic negligence could produce outsized liability for minor or technical violations.
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: negligence per se virginia winter sports act8.01-227.22 explaineddoes violating ski safety law mean automatic liability in virginiavirginia ski resort statutory duty violationwinter sports act negligence standard virginia