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

liabilityappealtrialwillvicarious liability

plaintiffdefendantliabilitytrialwill

Related Cases

McKichan v. St. Louis Hockey Club, L.P., 967 S.W.2d 209

Facts

A professional hockey goaltender was injured during a game when an opposing player delivered a severe body check after the referee had blown the whistle and play had stopped. The goaltender sued the opposing player and the player's team owner under a vicarious liability theory. The jury awarded the goaltender $175,000, but the owner appealed, arguing that the check was a risk inherent to professional hockey and thus not actionable. The case was tried under Illinois contact sports law, which has been adopted by Missouri.

In this personal injury case, plaintiff, a professional hockey goaltender, was injured during a game. He sued the opposing player (defendant player) who charged into him. In addition, he sued the defendant player's 'owner,' defendant herein.

Issue

Whether the owner of the opposing team is vicariously liable for the actions of the opposing player who injured the goaltender after the whistle had blown.

Whether the trial court erred in finding it vicariously liable for defendant player's acts because the conduct at issue was a risk inherent in professional hockey and one assumed by plaintiff.

Rule

In contact sports, participants assume the risks inherent to the sport, including injuries caused by co-participants, unless the conduct is willful, wanton, or intentional. The determination of whether a player's conduct is actionable depends on various factors, including the nature of the game, the players' skills, and the risks associated with the sport.

In amateur contact sports, liability must be predicated on 'willful and wanton or intentional misconduct.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of professional hockey, noting that rough play and body checks are commonplace and expected. The specific incident involved a body check delivered several seconds after play had stopped, but the court concluded that such conduct is part of the game and within the realm of reasonable anticipation for professional players. Therefore, the goaltender's claim against the owner under vicarious liability was not supported.

Rough play is commonplace in professional hockey. Anyone who has attended a professional hockey game or seen one on television recognizes the violent nature of the sport. In order to gain possession of the puck or to slow down the progress of opponents, players frequently hit each other with body checks.

Conclusion

The court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the body check was a risk inherent to professional hockey and not actionable under vicarious liability.

We hold as a matter of law that the specific conduct which occurred here is not actionable.

Who won?

The owner of the opposing team prevailed in the appeal. The court found that the actions of the opposing player, while resulting in injury, were part of the inherent risks of professional hockey that the goaltender had assumed. The court emphasized that the nature of professional hockey includes physical contact and that players are aware of these risks, thus negating the basis for vicarious liability against the owner.

The trial court's judgment is reversed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

France v. Bernstein, 43 F.4th 367

Radwan v. Manuel, 55 F.4th 101, 410 Ed. Law Rep. 39

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 580 U.S. 908, 137 S.Ct. 44 (Mem), 196 L.Ed.2d 197, 85 USLW 3136, 85 USLW 3147

Deutscher Tennis Bund v. ATP Tour, Inc., 610 F.3d 820, 2010-1 Trade Cases P 77,080

Fox Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Dish Network L.L.C., 747 F.3d 1060, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 765, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 959