On February 17, 2026, an avalanche near Castle Peak at Donner Summit took the lives of eight backcountry skiers. It is a terrible tragedy. According to numerous news reports, the group had been on a professionally guided, three-day trip to the Frog Lake Backcountry Huts near Truckee, California. They were on the final day of their trip, returning to the trailhead, when the slide struck.

Our hearts go out to every family and community touched by this devastating loss.

Based on news reports, it appears that an avalanche warning was in effect at the time the group was traveling. The circumstances that led to the decision to travel that day are currently under investigation, including by California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health. We do not have all the facts, but based on the news reports, we do have some information. This article will help explain the legal principles involved in the Castle Peak incident and an overall review of the law in this area.

Avalanche Risk and the Limits of Assumption of Risk

There is no question that backcountry skiing is an inherently dangerous activity. Anyone who ventures into uncontrolled mountain terrain in winter accepts certain risks—variable snow conditions, steep terrain, physical exertion, and the possibility of avalanche. California law recognizes this through the doctrine of “primary assumption of the risk,” established in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296. Under this doctrine, defendants generally owe no duty to protect participants against risks that are an integral part of a recreational activity. When primary assumption of risk applies, it is a complete defense. 

But assumption of risk has limits. California law draws a critical distinction between the inherent risks of an activity—which participants assume—and increased risks created by a defendant's conduct—which they do not. A guide or instructor who increases the risks of an activity beyond those that are inherent can be held liable. The standard is whether the guide engaged in conduct “so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved” in the sport. (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th at 316; Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 996.)

Guide Company Liability: The Duty Not to Increase the Risk

Under California's respondeat superior doctrine, a guide company is liable for the acts of its guides performed within the scope of their employment. The company is responsible in damages just as if it had personally committed the act. This is true regardless of whether the company exercised due care in hiring or supervising the guide. (Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 960)

California courts have specifically addressed the liability of guides who make unilateral decisions that expose clients to dangers the clients cannot independently assess. In Cohen v. Five Brooks Stable (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1476, a horseback trail guide leading a group that included inexperienced riders suddenly caused his horse to gallop without warning. The guide knew the other horses would follow his lead. A rider was thrown and seriously injured. The court found a triable issue of fact as to whether the guide's conduct was reckless—because the guide made a unilateral decision that exposed clients to a specific danger they had no meaningful ability to evaluate or refuse on their own. 

The principle from Cohen speaks directly to the guided backcountry skiing context. Clients on a professionally guided trip are relying on the guide's expertise to make the critical safety decisions—which route to take, when to travel, and when to stay put. That reliance is the entire reason they hired a professional guide. When the guide or guide company decides to move a group through avalanche terrain during conditions that official forecasting authorities have warned against, that is a decision the clients are not in a position to second-guess in real time. They are trusting the professionals.

The guide company's liability is not limited to respondeat superior. If the company itself had safety protocols that should have prevented travel during high-danger conditions—or if organizational decision-makers at the company's base were aware of the conditions and approved or failed to halt the trip—the company may bear direct, independent liability as well.

Waivers Do Not Protect Against Gross Negligence

Participants in guided backcountry trips are almost always required to sign a release and waiver of liability before the trip begins. These waivers can be enforceable under California law, and courts have upheld releases in recreational and instructional settings, including ski lessons. (Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1358.)

However, there is a firm line that waivers cannot cross. Under Civil Code section 1668, a party cannot contractually release itself from liability for its own fraud, willful injury, or violation of law. California courts have consistently interpreted this to mean that a waiver does not protect against gross negligence—defined as an “extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care” or a “failure to exercise even scant care.”

In Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, the Sixth Appellate District addressed this principle directly. A health club member had signed a broad liability release. She was struck in the head by a back panel that fell off an exercise machine and suffered a traumatic brain injury. The health club moved for summary judgment based on the waiver. The court reversed, holding that despite the signed release, a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the health club was grossly negligent. The health club had maintenance protocols on paper—preventative maintenance charts, a dedicated technician, a computer logging system—but the evidence suggested those protocols were not actually being followed. The gap between the company's stated safety procedures and its actual conduct was enough to raise a triable issue of gross negligence that the waiver could not bar.

The framework from Chavez is directly relevant to guided backcountry avalanche cases. A guide company may require clients to sign a waiver covering the inherent risks of backcountry skiing, including avalanche.  But if the company's own guides proceed through avalanche terrain during conditions that their training teaches them to avoid (or if they lack training an even stronger argument appears against the company), there is a strong argument that this was gross negligence, and the signed waiver is irrelevant. 

What Families Should Know

For families who have lost a loved one in a guided backcountry incident, the grief is overwhelming and the legal questions can feel impossible to navigate. We offer the following not as conclusions about any particular case, but as general principles under California law.

Signing a waiver does not necessarily mean there is no legal recourse. Waivers do not protect a guide company from liability for gross negligence, and ambiguities in a waiver's terms are construed against the company that drafted it. (Civil Code Section 1654)

The fact that backcountry skiing is inherently dangerous does not mean that every avalanche death is without legal remedy. California law distinguishes between risks that are truly inherent in the sport and risks that are increased by a guide's or guide company's decisions. When professionals choose to move a group through avalanche terrain during conditions that official authorities have warned against, the question of whether that decision increased the risk beyond what clients assumed is a legitimate legal question.

If regulatory investigations—such as a Cal/OSHA inquiry—produce findings of statutory or regulatory violations, those findings may further strengthen a family's legal position by establishing a rebuttable presumption of breached duty. ( Evid. Code § 669.)

Every case turns on its specific facts. Families considering their legal options should consult with an attorney experienced in personal injury and recreational activity litigation who can evaluate the particular circumstances of their loss.