A California Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision to deny an inline skater’s bid to recover damages from an injury he suffered at a city skate park.
On February 21, 2003, Ernest McMeans visited the City of Escondido Skate Park and attempted a trick skating maneuver known as the ‘true spin porn star.” McMeans missed the top of the ramp with his right foot during the maneuver, and in an attempt to recover from a fall, McMeans drug his left hand on the surface near the top of the ramp. His wedding ring became caught on a screw, severing his ring finger above the first knuckle.
On November 1, the previous year, McMeans had signed a waiver releasing the City of Escondido from any liability.
The City of Escondido required McMeans to sign the waiver prior to being able to skate at the park. The waiver released the City of Escondido from liability for claims McMeans may have sustained while skating at the park, “whether or not the alleged injury is caused by or arises out of any dangerous condition of property, or the alleged negligence or any acts or omissions of the City, its officers, agents or employees.”
Because McMeans had signed a waiver releasing the City of Escondido, McMeans is required to show that the City of Escondido was grossly negligent. The waiver prevented McMeans from recovering for mere negligence.
McMeans had argued the City of Escondido was grossly negligent by failing to have written policies or procedures for the inspection of skate ramps for raised screws, failing to remedy the raised screw problem despite knowing skaters had injured themselves on raised screws, and failing to inspect ramps for raised screws on the date of the accident.
The lower court did not find the city to be grossly negligent, and therefore granted summary judgment for the City of Escondido.
On review, the Court of Appeals also found that the City of Escondido was not grossly negligent. Here, McMeans argued that the lower court erred by finding that the release barred his claim.
In his appellate argument, McMeans stated that neither negligence nor gross negligence claims should be barred since the injury he suffered was not a known risk of inline skating. Because McMeans failed to address this in his lower court argument, he was not entitled to appellate review on this argument.
McMeans also contended in his appellate argument that the release should be waived as a matter of public policy. California case law stated otherwise. The Court of Appeals found that waivers in the recreational sports context do not implicate the public interest in the state of California.
The Court of Appeals also noted that gross negligence requires “the want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct” to establish gross negligence in California. And because McMeans sought to hold the City of Escondido liable, a public entity, he was required to show that the City of Escondido failed to exercise any care at all.
As a public entity, the City of Escondido only must exercise some care in order to avoid the gross negligence charge. The court believed that McMeans did not offer sufficient evidence to show that the City of Escondido did not exercise any care. According to the Court of Appeals, the city “was not required to exercise all options” in maintaining the skate park.
The Court of Appeals found that because the City of Escondido had some process of inspection and maintenance and provided the inspectors with a means to fix broken equipment, the city was not grossly negligent. Despite McMeans’ claims otherwise, the court also found that there was no evidence that the city was aware of previous personal injuries caused by raised screws. Ernest McMeans v. City of Escondido; Ct.App.Calif., 4th App. Dist., Div. 1; D045375; 12/9/05
