By Robert E. Freeman and Jonathan Mollod, of Proskauer
A California appellate court affirmed the dismissal of negligence and premises liability claims against roller rink owner Skateland Enterprises, Inc. (“Skateland”) over injury claims brought by a skater, Plaintiff Geraldine Myers (“Myers” or “Plaintiff”), with the court finding that roller skating is “inherently risky” and Plaintiff failed to show that Skateland increased the risks of injury beyond those inherent to skating. (Myers v. Skateland Enterprises Inc., No. B328404 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. Sept. 23, 2024) (unpublished)). Hence, this appeal—a “couples-only slow skate” of sorts between Skateland and Myers—is over and Skateland’s initial summary judgment award stands.
Plaintiff was injured at Skateland in December 2019 during a Sunday evening public skating session after another skater clipped her arm and caused her to fall after the rink had issued a “stop skating” instruction to allow workers to remove gum from the floor. Plaintiff was wearing her own roller skates. Evidence suggested that at the time of the fall, there were around 150 skaters on the floor, and camera footage showed at least two floor guards in referee shirts in the vicinity of Plaintiff skating with the patrons and monitoring for unsafe behavior (or perhaps groups of friends skating a bit overzealously in a “train”); the rink also had a program director/DJ in an elevated booth who could supervise the rink and make rink-wide announcements. Testimony suggested Skateland exceeded safety standards, as industry guidelines recommend only one floor guard for every 200 skaters. Apparently, on the day of the incident, floor guards had admonished one skater after receiving a complaint about his skating that night (the man did not receive any further complaints), but later in the evening it was this same skater who bumped into Plaintiff‘s outstretched arm at a slow speed and caused her to fall.
In March 2021, Myers wheeled into California Superior Court in Los Angeles and filed her complaint against Skateland and the other skater (who was not involved in the appeal), advancing negligence and premises liability claims. While Plaintiff conceded that skating is an inherent risky activity, she alleged that Skateland unreasonably increased the risks of injury by failing to properly regulate the skating floor, failing to provide trained skating supervisors, and failing to prevent a rogue skater from injuring Plaintiff. Skateland countered in its motion for summary judgment that Myers assumed the risk of injury, that the “incidental contact” between Myers and the other skater “is endemic in the activity” and that Skateland followed industry safety protocols and did nothing to increase the risk associated with roller skating.
In January 2023, the trial court granted Skateland’s motion for summary judgment, finding that falling is an inherent risk of roller skating and that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to prove that Skateland did anything to unreasonably increase that risk. The trial court pointed to CCTV footage from the day in question that bolstered the defense: an adequate number of skate guards on the floor, the supposedly “reckless” skater skating in control, and depicting the incident as a “low-speed interaction.” Thus, the trial court ruled that Skateland was not liable for what is an ordinary risk of roller skating: “[B]umping into other skaters and falling is an inherent risk of roller skating, especially in a group setting….”
Lacing up their quad skates, the California appellate court affirmed Skateland’s award of summary judgment and concluded the assumption of risk doctrine foreclosed Myers’ claims. The court stated that a defendant has no duty to eliminate or protect against risks inherent in a sport or recreational activity but cannot unreasonably “increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport.” The court also pointed out that several states in fact have enacted statutes limiting the liability of roller rink operators for the inherent risks of skating (see e.g., New Jersey, N.J.S.A. §5:14-6: “Roller skaters and spectators are deemed to… assume the inherent risks of roller skating… [which include] injuries which result from incidental contact with other roller skaters or spectators….”).
Noting that collisions between skaters in a rink are an intrinsic risk of skating that could not be prevented by more skate guards or warnings, the court found that Plaintiff’s claims do not raise a triable issue because there was no evidence that Skateland increased the inherent risks of the skating: “It is inevitable that a skater may move unexpectedly, or throw out an arm, resulting in unintended contact… and Skateland had no duty to decrease that inherent risk.” In affirming dismissal, the court added: “Short of fundamentally changing skating by encasing skaters in a mound of bubble wrap, the possibility of injury cannot be avoided as skaters turn, slow, and speed up while maneuvering around the rink, creating an inherent risk of collisions.”
Having notched a win on appeal, Skateland can now take a victory lap around the oval and “Shoot the Duck.” Though, it should be noted, that since the filing of this litigation, the Skateland Northridge location has closed and been sold to a local community organization.
