Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

plaintiffdefendantnegligencetrial
plaintiffdefendanttrial

Related Cases

Shephard v. Loyola Marymount Univ., 102 Cal.App.4th 837, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 829, 89 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1856, 169 Ed. Law Rep. 624, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,143, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,545
View Case »
Harris v. Portland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 1317125
View Case »
Williams v. NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 43113, 2020 Employee Benefits Cas. 2618
View Case »
State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc., 31 Wis.2d 699, 144 N.W.2d 1
View Case »
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807, 151 Ed. Law Rep. 18, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1435, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1793, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 74
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Nemarnik v. Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club, L.P., 103 Cal.App.4th 631, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 10, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,049, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,807

Facts

Holly Ann Nemarnik was injured by a flying puck during pre-game warm-ups at a Los Angeles Kings hockey game. She was seated in the fourth row but could not see the ice due to a large crowd congregating in front of her. Despite her attempts to get a better view, she was unable to see the puck coming towards her and was struck in the mouth, resulting in severe injuries. Nemarnik sued the Kings, the NHL, and the venue operators, claiming negligence for failing to control the crowd.

Plaintiff Holly Ann Nemarnik was injured when, during pre-game warm ups at a Los Angeles Kings ice hockey game, a puck flew off the ice and struck her in the mouth. Plaintiff 'tried folding up her seat and sitting on the edge to obtain a clear view, but still could not see over the crowd the venue had allowed to form around and in front of her.'

Issue

Did the defendants owe a duty to the spectator to eliminate the inherent risk of injury from flying pucks?

Did the defendants owe a duty to the spectator to eliminate the inherent risk of injury from flying pucks?

Rule

Defendants in a sporting event generally have no legal duty to eliminate risks inherent in the sport itself, such as being hit by a flying puck. However, they do have a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid increasing those risks beyond what is inherent in the sport. The primary assumption of risk doctrine applies, meaning that spectators assume certain risks when attending games.

Defendants in a sporting event generally have no legal duty to eliminate risks inherent in the sport itself, such as being hit by a flying puck. However, they do have a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid increasing those risks beyond what is inherent in the sport.

Analysis

The court found that the risk of being hit by a flying puck is an inherent part of attending a hockey game, and thus, the defendants had no duty to eliminate this risk. The plaintiff's argument that poor crowd control increased her risk was not sufficient, as she did not demonstrate that a clear line of sight would have allowed her to avoid the puck. The court concluded that the injury was due to the inherent risk of the sport rather than any negligence on the part of the defendants.

The court found that the risk of being hit by a flying puck is an inherent part of attending a hockey game, and thus, the defendants had no duty to eliminate this risk. The plaintiff's argument that poor crowd control increased her risk was not sufficient, as she did not demonstrate that a clear line of sight would have allowed her to avoid the puck.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's ruling of nonsuit, concluding that the defendants owed no duty to eliminate the inherent risk of injury from flying pucks.

The court affirmed the trial court's ruling of nonsuit, concluding that the defendants owed no duty to eliminate the inherent risk of injury from flying pucks.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in this case as the court ruled that they did not owe a duty to eliminate the inherent risk of injury from flying pucks. The court emphasized that the risk of being hit by a puck is a known and accepted risk of attending a hockey game, and the defendants had not increased that risk through their actions. The ruling underscored the principle that spectators assume certain risks when they choose to attend sporting events.

The defendants prevailed in this case as the court ruled that they did not owe a duty to eliminate the inherent risk of injury from flying pucks. The court emphasized that the risk of being hit by a puck is a known and accepted risk of attending a hockey game, and the defendants had not increased that risk through their actions.

You must be