Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencesummary judgmentduty of careappellant

negligencesummary judgmentsustainedduty of carerespondentappellant

Related Cases

Hurst v. East Coast Hockey League, Inc., 371 S.C. 33, 637 S.E.2d 560

Facts

Craig A. Hurst, the appellant, filed a negligence action against multiple defendants after being struck in the face by a hockey puck while attending a Pride hockey game at the Civic Center on January 11, 2002. Hurst entered the spectator area behind one of the goals during pre-game warm-ups when the incident occurred. The Civic Center was operated by the Florence City-County Civic Center Commission, and the Pride was a member of the East Coast Hockey League. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the risk of being struck by a puck was inherent to the game of hockey.

Appellant filed this negligence action against Respondents for injuries he sustained while attending a Pride hockey game at the Civic Center on January 11, 2002. During pregame warm-ups, Appellant entered the spectator area at the Civic Center through a curtained concourse entrance behind one of the goals. Appellant was struck in the face by a puck while standing behind the goal.

Issue

Did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment?

Rule

Under the doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk, a spectator at a hockey game assumes the risk of being struck by a flying puck, as this risk is inherent to the game. To establish negligence, a plaintiff must prove a duty owed by the defendant, a breach of that duty, and damages resulting from the breach. If no duty exists, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Under doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk, spectator at hockey game assumed risk of being struck in face by flying puck while standing behind goal in spectator area during pre-game warm-ups; risk of spectator being struck by flying puck was inherent to game of hockey and was common, expected, and frequent risk of hockey.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the defendants owed a duty of care to Hurst regarding the risk of being struck by a puck. It was determined that the risk of injury from flying pucks is common and expected in hockey, similar to risks associated with other spectator sports. The court referenced previous cases that established that spectators assume these inherent risks, thus negating the defendants' duty to protect against them. The court concluded that Hurst's action failed as a matter of law under the primary implied assumption of risk doctrine.

The issue before the Court is whether Respondents owed a duty of care to protect Appellant from flying pucks. We find Gunther instructive because the risk of being injured by a foul ball at a baseball game and the risk of being injured by a flying puck at a hockey game are similar risks.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that Hurst had assumed the risk of being struck by a puck.

Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude Appellant's action fails as a matter of law under primary implied assumption of risk. The circuit court properly granted summary judgment for Respondents.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in this case because the court found that the risk of being struck by a flying puck is an inherent part of attending a hockey game. The court determined that Hurst, as a spectator, had impliedly assumed this risk, which negated any duty of care the defendants might have owed him. The ruling emphasized that the inherent risks associated with the sport do not impose a legal obligation on the defendants to protect spectators from such risks.

The court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents based on the doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Powell v. Seton Hall University, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2022 WL 1224959

Fraser v. Major League Soccer, L.L.C., 284 F.3d 47, 2002-1 Trade Cases P 73,620, 59 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 418

Sherry v. East Suburban Football League, 292 Mich.App. 23, 807 N.W.2d 859

Duggin v. Adams, 234 Va. 221, 360 S.E.2d 832

Brown v. Woolf, 554 F.Supp. 1206