In a 3-2 decision, a New York state appeals court has affirmed a ruling for the United States Olympic Committee and other defendants, which were sued by a speedskater who was injured after she slammed into a wall while practicing in an Olympic skating rink.
Essentially, the majority held that the plaintiff, Nicole L. Ziegelmeyer, could not show that the pads were either damaged or defective prior to her collision with them.
The dissent, meanwhile, concluded that the plaintiff’s claim that the pads were not properly attached, prior to the collision, “was uncontradicted in this record.”
The incident occurred while the plaintiff, a self professed “very experienced and highly proficient” speedskater and two-time Olympic medal winner, was practicing at the 1980 Olympic indoor rink in the Village of Lake Placid, N.Y., when she fell on the ice, hit the fiberglass boards surrounding the rink and injured her spine. “Although pads had been placed on the boards, plaintiff fell in such a manner that her feet lifted them up causing her hip to strike the boards directly,” wrote the court.
She sued for negligence, claiming certain defendants were liable for her injuries “based upon their failure to install the pads in accordance with applicable international standards.”
Shortly thereafter, the defendants successfully moved for summary judgment, basing their motion on the assumption of risk doctrine.
On appeals, the plaintiff sought to diffuse the doctrine by focusing “on the principle that a damaged or dangerous safety feature is not an inherent risk of a sport,” noted the majority.
“This record does not establish that the pads were either damaged or defective. No factual affidavit was submitted by plaintiff disputing the affidavit of a fellow speedskater and coach to the effect that falling speedskaters often strike the pads in such a fashion as to cause the pads to move out of position on impact. Even acknowledging the conflicting accounts as to the method by which the pads were affixed to the boards, in the absence of a denial that the pads can move in the fashion in which this accident occurred, we cannot say that the subject pads were defective or dangerous such that plaintiff’s accident was anything other than an inherent risk of her sport.”
The dissenting judges claimed that “the record contains arguable questions of fact as to whether the protective pads placed over the boards on the day of the accident, October 9, 1997, were properly installed in accordance with the applicable standards set forth by the International Skating Union and in the Special Regulations for Speed Skating and Short Track Speed Skating.”
Further, the “plaintiff’s assertion that, on the day of her accident, the pads were only connected to each other and not attached to the boards is uncontradicted in this record, and that failure bears a direct relationship to plaintiff’s claim that she was injured because an unattached pad lifted up, causing her hip to directly strike the unpadded board.”
The dissent concluded that “summary judgment in defendants’ favor at this juncture is tantamount to a finding that, as a matter of law, the safety requirement that pads be attached to the boards and not just to each other is unnecessary for practices, a result that is not supported by the language of the rules or the testimony concerning the speeds employed at practices. Consequently, we find issues of fact as to, among other things, compliance with the safety rules and whether, at the time of plaintiff’s accident, defendants met their duty of making the conditions at the 1980 Olympic indoor rink as safe as they appeared to be (see Turcotte v Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 439, 502 N.E.2d 964, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49 [1986]), and/or if the failure to attach the pads to the boards on the date of the accident created a dangerous condition “‘over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport'” (Morgan v State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 485, 685 N.E.2d 202, 662 N.Y.S.2d 421 [1997], quoting Owen v R.J.S. Safety Equip., 79 N.Y.2d 967, 970, 591 N.E.2d 1184, 582 N.Y.S.2d 998 [1970]).”
Nicole L. Ziegelmeyer, v United States Olympic Committee et al.; Supreme Court Of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department; 97705; 4/27/06.
Attorneys of Record: (for appellant) Harris Beach, L.L.P., Albany (Mark J. McCarthy of counsel). (for respondent United States Olympic Committee) Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux, L.L.P., Albany (Matthew J. Kelly of counsel). (for respondent United States Speed Skating) Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney & Laird, P.C., Albany (William J. Decaire of counsel).
The Attorneys Speak
(From Mark J. McCarthy):
“There are two issues which were, from my perspective, erroneous in the Appellate Division’s decision.
“Procedurally, the opinion and the dissent make clear there were sharp factual issues in dispute. That alone makes the granting of summary judgment improper. Further, the opinion of Justice Carpinello is simply wrong in its Footnote 2 that the manner of affixing the pads to the boards “simply has nothing to do with the manner in which this accident occurred”. In fact, and in the record, the International Skating Union rules (conceded by all parties to be controlling) require affixing the pads to each other and to the boards for the explicit purpose of avoiding a lifting of the pads during collision so as to allow the skater to strike the boards.
“Substantively, the Appellate Division decision completely ignores the controlling authority of the New York Court of Appeals decision in Siegel v. City of New York, one of the quartet of cases decided under Morgan v. State of New York, 90 NY2d 471. In Siegel the Court of Appeals specifically held that damaged or dangerous safety features are not a risk inherent in sport for summary judgment purposes. Instead, a plaintiff’s knowledge of the defect is simply an issue of comparative fault, not constituting an assumed risk barring any recovery. In Siegel, for example, the plaintiff had been aware of the defect for some two years.
“In our case whether Nicki knew of the manner of placing the pads is therefore irrelevant to the determination at this juncture (as it is undisputed she had no idea of the standard established by the ISU). We are hopeful the Court will reverse, both due to the clear issues of fact requiring trial, and on the controlling authority of Siegel.
(From Mathew J. Kelly):
“I believe the court correctly reviewed the balance between the assumption of risk attributable to the casual athlete and that of the more sophisticated one, as in this case.”
