A Michigan appeals court has affirmed a trial court’s ruling that effectively dismissed the claim of a plaintiff, who was injured in a roller skating accident and subsequently sued the rink where the accident occurred.
The panel of judges concluded specifically that “considering the totality of the circumstances” that the plaintiff’s injuries “were not caused by any negligent conduct” involving the operator of the rink or its employees.
Central to the ruling in favor of the defendant was the protection provided by the Roller Skating Safety Act of 1988 (RSSA), MCL 445.1721 et seq.
The accident occurred when a Plainfield Skating Rink employee, a floor guard, allegedly stopped abruptly in front of Matthew Wright, the plaintiff, causing him to lose his balance and fall.
Wright sued, claiming that the defendant breached its duty to comply with the roller skating safety standards published by the roller skating rink operators association.
The defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing the application of the RSSA. The trial court found that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact and granted the motion.
In its review of the decision, the appeals court quoted from MCL 445.1725 of the RSSA:
“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 court noted that “based on this assumption of risk clause, earlier cases provided absolute immunity to roller skating rink operators, where roller skaters were injured as a result of a fall or collision with another roller skater. Dale v Beta-C, Inc, 223 Mich. App. 801, 803; 566 N.W.2d 640 (1997)(Dale I), vacated by order convening special panel 223 Mich. App. 801 (1997); Skene v Fileccia, 213 Mich. App. 1, 7; 539 N.W.2d 531 (1995), overruled by Dale v Beta-C, Inc, 227 Mich. App 57, 66-67; 574 N.W.2d 697 (1997)(Dale II).
“After Dale I was decided, a special panel of this Court convened to resolve a conflict between the Skene and Dale I decisions. The panel overruled Skene to the extent that Skene concluded that an operator’s behavior was irrelevant where a roller skater was injured as a result of a fall or a collision because of the assumption of risk language in MCL 445.1725. Dale II, supra at 66-67.
“This Court concluded that the Legislature did not intend to provide absolute immunity to skating rink operators and therefore, although a roller skater assumes the risks of obvious and necessary dangers inherent in the sport of roller skating, a roller skater does not assume the risk of an operator violating its duties prescribed in MCL 445.1723. Id. at 66-67. Thus, if a violation of MCL 445.1723 is alleged and proven, the operator shall be liable for damages in a civil action as envisioned by MCL 445.1726. Dale II, supra at 67.”
In the instant case, however, the plaintiff “failed to produce evidence that defendant or the floor guard violated any of the enumerated safety standards, and, therefore, plaintiff has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding defendant’s alleged violation of the safety standards or MCL 445.1723.
“Moreover, assuming, but not conceding, that the safety standard, which provides that a floor guard ‘must use good judgment while being firm and maintaining the respect of the skaters[,]’ relates to the reasonableness of a floor guard’s skating actions and performance, we nonetheless believe that summary disposition was appropriate.”
The panel of judges next turned to the plaintiff request and the trial court’s denial of leave to file an amended complaint naming the floor guard, in her individual capacity, as a defendant. The trial court, however, denied plaintiff’s motion to amend. “The court found that under the RSSA, an employee of a roller skating rink is entitled to the same protections as the operator of the roller skating rink,” wrote the appeals court.
“Plaintiff argues that the floor guard, as a roller skater herself, violated § 4 of the RSSA when she acted in a manner likely to cause injury to another, failed to exercise reasonable control, failed to maintain a proper lookout, and failed to use good judgment. Assuming that the RSSA contemplates that an operator’s employee, such as a floor guard, can be deemed a ‘roller skater’ and be subject to individual liability, any amendment would still be futile in light of our ruling above finding that plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by any negligent conduct on the part of the floor guard considering the totality of the circumstances.”
Matthew Wright v. Plainfield Skating Rink; Ct. App. Mich.; No. 257623; 1/19/2006
