A Michigan state appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s finding that a woman who injured herself while participating in the sport of roller derby assumed the risk of injury and thus “has no ground for complaint” against the facility or its instructors.
On April 30, 2007, Debbie Kline attended a class at the Rollhaven Skating Center, which was designed to teach her how to participate in the sport of roller derby. While Kline knew that the sport itself involved physical contact, she testified that she had no idea that the first day of lessons would involve actual drills leading to potential physical contact.
The injury occurred when another skater, who was designated as a “jammer” – a position that sometimes involves physically breaking through other skaters if unable to pass them without contact — crashed into the plaintiff, who was acting as a “blocker.”
Kline sued for negligence, breach of contract, nuisance, and assault and battery. The defendants moved for summary judgment and the trial court ruled:
“We are where we started and that is that this roller skating is roller skating. This is roller skating. The statute embodies and embraces all various counts as pled. All counts are dismissed. Motion for summary disposition is granted.”
The plaintiff appealed.
The following sections of the Roller Skating Safety Act of 1988 (RSSA) are relevant to a proper analysis of the issues presented on appeal:
“Each roller skating center operator shall do all of the following:
(a) Post the duties of roller skaters and spectators as prescribed in this act and the duties, obligations, and liabilities of operators as prescribed in this act in conspicuous places.
(b) Comply with the safety standards specified in the roller skating rink safety standards published by the roller skating rink operators association, (1980).
(c) Maintain roller skating equipment and roller skating surfaces according to the safety standards cited in subdivision (b).
(d) Maintain the stability and legibility of all required signs, symbols, and posted notices.
The court continued, noting that “each person who participates in roller skating accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries that result from collisions with other roller skaters or other spectators, injuries that result from falls, and injuries which involve objects or artificial structures properly within the intended travel of the roller skater which are not otherwise attributable to the operator’s breach of his or her common law duties.”
The RSSA was enacted to address the concerns with the increasing frequency of lawsuits filed against skating rink operators and the corresponding rise in insurance premiums for such facilities, according to the court.
“No matter what terms are used, the basic premise is the same: When people engage in a recreational activity, they have voluntarily subjected themselves to certain risks inherent in that activity. When one of those risks results in injury, the participant has no ground for complaint.
“Here, plaintiff understood that she was taking lessons to learn the sport of roller derby, which is a contact sport, and while plaintiff testified that she did not expect the lesson to include full-contact drills, she voluntarily chose to participate in a drill before the accident occurred after being asked to act as a ‘blocker.’ Plaintiff specifically testified that she recognized that blocking could involve a collision with another skater. Indeed, plaintiff testified that she prepared herself to block other skaters by extending her arms and also braced herself against possible impact. She also testified that she was free to leave the skate class at any time. To the extent that an assault and battery could potentially be attributed to defendants, and not the ‘jammer’ skater alone who struck plaintiff, and again assuming that the RSSA would allow the claim, we hold that, as a matter of law, plaintiff consented to participating in the roller derby drill, knowing that contact was possible. And we cannot conclude that the contact went beyond that ordinarily permissible in the context of roller derby. Accordingly, there was no assault and battery. Additionally, with respect to assault and battery, the evidence reflected that the contact between plaintiff and the ‘jammer’ was inadvertent and not intentional, and an assault, as well as a battery, requires an intentional and willful act. Espinoza, supra at 119. In sum, reversal is unwarranted.”
Debbie Kline v. Skatemore, INC., d/b/a Rollhaven Skating Center, and Daniel K. Brown; Ct. App. Mich.; No. 288141, 2009 Mich. App. LEXIS 2662; 12/22/09
