The Court's decision seems pretty boneheaded to me.
“We agree that collisions between skiers are an inherent risk of skiing,” Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton wrote. “Accordingly, we hold that skiers assume the ordinary risks of skiing, which include collisions with other skiers, and cannot recover for an injury unless it can be shown that the other skier’s actions were reckless or intentional"
According to their reasoning if I am a bad snowboard unable to control myself, slam into a children's' ski class and kill several of them I have no liability for my actions because they "assumed the ordinary risks of skiing," which include getting hit by other skiers and possibly killed. So much for people being responsible for their actions. Does the law of Ohio apply that same standard to auto accidents, which is even more inherently dangerous?
Welcome to my world, a parallel universe where justice isn't always about what we think is right according to our experience. Negligence, recklessness, risk, and liability are legal terms of art. We don't know what was presented in court, what the court found was a "reasonable person's" standard of conduct on a ski hill, or whether expert testimony was offered on the standard of care of either skier (the standard in civil cases) in finding she hadn't proven he was culpable to a degree that outweighed any of her conduct. If the court found she contributed to the accident by traversing out of view below a roller, it probably found that in addition to accepting the risk of skiing (according to the non-skiing reasonable person's view of the sport) she contributed to the accident, which probably made her case less than compelling.
None of this makes common sense, unless you're one of several on these forums who admit to having irresponsibly clipped or charged right into a downhill skier who's in their way. We who care about such things know it's unconscionable to put others in danger when we're having our fun, even if they're a beginner who seems to do everything they can to put themselves in danger. The courts don't agree. It's a big bummer for the woman who got mauled, and it's wrong, but frankly, civil liability isn't about what's right in the real world.
OK, back to what we know is reasonable on a ski hill. Like I said, I don't agree with the court's decision from a skier's perspective, but the decision isn't particular surprising even given the facts we have.