Skating Rink Avoids Liability for Fall
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 645
Tags:
None
On September 8, 2001, a patron of the Ice House Skating Rink in Cary fell while skating on ice, fracturing her skull and suffering permanent disabilities.
The patron filed suit and alleged that she was knocked down by a teenage boy who was skating rambunctiously with a group of other teenagers.
An expert for the injured patron testified that the skating rink should have had an employee patrolling the ice to stop unruly skaters and to keep skaters out of the center ice. The expert also testified that signs should have warned about horseplay.
The plaintiff had other evidence which would show that as many as seventy-five skaters were on the ice when she fell. The Ice House had not assigned an employee to "ice patrol" even though it had a policy of doing so and sometimes put someone on that job when there were as few as thirty skaters on the ice.
An expert witness offered by the injured patron testified that the Ice House was negligent in not having a rink guard on the ice surface during a public session. The expert said that such a rink guard was required under the standard of care recognized by the Ice Skating Institute of America. He testified that, in his opinion, the Ice House employees did not have sufficient safety training and that there were no posted signs warning about horseplay.
Upon a motion made by lawyers for the Ice House Skating Rink, the trial judge dismissed the case without allowing a jury to rule on whether the Ice House was liable to the patron for her injuries.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has recently upheld this dismissal. The Court of Appeals held that the injured patron had not established any causal link between the negligence she alleged and her injuries. The Court of Appeals noted that no one saw the fall and there was no evidence to show how or why the injured patron fell. The Appeals Court noted that a jury would have been forced to speculate on those issues.
Because of her head injuries, the injured customer has no memory of the fall and could not locate any witnesses who saw the accident. However, her family members testified that a boy told the clamant that he was sorry shortly after the accident.
In holding that the claimant's evidence was not sufficient, the Court of Appeals wrote: "Given the lack of information about how plaintiff fell, the current record is devoid of evidence that supports an inference that a rink guard could have prevented the fall. Accordingly, the statement by teenage boy does not establish that an act or omission by defendant caused the plaintiff's damages."
This case demonstrates the difficulty of proving liability when there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence in question.
For more information on this subject matter, please review our section on Premises Liability / Slip & Fall.