Archive for the ‘Arena’ Category

Imperfect Storm – Hockey Arena Snow Remover Not Liable for Slip and Fall Injury During Storm (NY)

August 17, 2015

Harvey v. LAZ Parking Ltd. (New York)

A hockey fan slipped and fell on an icy pedestrian area while exiting a hockey arena.  He filed a lawsuit against the city and its snow removal contractor.  The fan’s wife also filed a claim for loss of consortium.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.  The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court decision, holding that the defendants were not liable pursuant to the “storm in progress rule.”  According to the rule, “[a] landowner has no duty to remedy a dangerous condition resulting from a storm while the storm is in progress and has a reasonable amount of time after the storm has ended to take corrective action.”  The defendants relied on plaintiffs’ own testimony that there was precipitation during and after the game, and they also relied on weather data and climatological records establishing the timing of the precipitation.  The evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that the ice was formed by the ongoing weather conditions.  Once established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to produce  “admissible evidence that the ice that caused plaintiff’s slip and fall existed prior to the storm in progress, and that defendant[s] had actual or constructive notice of the hazard.”  The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s expert affidavit failed to meet that burden.

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

July 20, 2015

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.”