Low Marks from the U.S.A. Judge – Claims of Fallen Ice Skater Denied (DE)

by

Paveza v. The Pond, Inc. (Delaware)

Plaintiff and her daughter were participating an “open skate” at the ice skating rink operated by the defendant.  Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on debris while she was skating.  In her lawsuit, plaintiff claimed that the defendants negligently failed to remove the debris which caused her to fall and failed to warn her about the debris.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment contending that it did not owe plaintiff a duty to protect her from the alleged condition that caused the incident.

Plaintiff’s daughter testified that she saw a rubber band on the ice just before and just after her mother fell, but she further indicated that the band was picked up by someone after the incident.  It was undisputed that the ice had last been resurfaced the night before the incident, and the testimony established that skaters had been on the ice for as long as an hour on the day of the incident prior to plaintiff’s fall.  Plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to conduct an inspection of the ice during the hour leading up to the incident, such that a jury could conclude that the defendant should have known of the presence of the band on the ice.  However, the trial court disagreed:

“The undisputed testimony and evidence permits only one conclusion, that the ‘band’ was only on the ice for moments before the fall, having been dropped by the couple just prior to the incident, and being immediately retrieved by them after the incident.  There is no evidence of record which supports that Defendant knew or should have known of the presence of the band in the short interval between when Plaintiff claims it was dropped and when Plaintiff fell.  Plaintiff does not claim that Defendant is strictly liable for her injuries.  To establish negligence, Plaintiff has to show that Defendant had notice or should have had notice of debris on the ice.  The testimony of the persons present, Plaintiff, her daughter . . . , and the witness . . . cannot support a legal finding that Defendant had notice or should have had notice that there was debris on the ice.”

The trial court also concluded that “[p]rimary assumption of the risk generally applies to participants in sporting events,” and that “[p]laintiff assumed the risk that she might fall.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: