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

plaintiffdefendantnegligencecorporation
plaintiffdefendantcorporation

Related Cases

Nixon v. Clay, 449 P.3d 11, 2019 UT 32
View Case »
Puchalski v. School Dist. of Springfield, 161 F.Supp.2d 395, 143 Lab.Cas. P 59,278, 156 Ed. Law Rep. 1092
View Case »
Beckett v. Clinton Prairie School Corp., 504 N.E.2d 552, 37 Ed. Law Rep. 929
View Case »
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
View Case »
Dogra v. CAA Sports LLC, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2019 WL 2357330
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Thurman v. Ice Palace, 36 Cal.App.2d 364, 97 P.2d 999

Facts

Mary Katherine Thurman, a minor, was injured when struck by a hockey puck while watching a game at the Ice Palace, a venue owned by the defendant corporation. The seating area where she was located was not protected by a screen, and there were no warnings about the dangers of flying pucks. Thurman had never attended an ice hockey game before and was unaware of the risks involved. The court had to determine whether the defendants were negligent for not providing adequate protection for spectators.

About ten minutes before plaintiff Mary Katherine Thurman received her injury, she entered the rink and was seated in a box on one side of the rink, which was unprotected by any wire screen. She had never seen an ice hockey game before and had not theretofore been in the Ice Palace. Shortly after she was seated, the puck, a hard rubber disk approximately three inches in diameter and one inch in thickness, was driven off the ice and struck plaintiff Mary Katherine Thurman in the mouth, causing serious personal injury.

Issue

Does a spectator at an ice hockey game, who voluntarily selects a seat, which is not protected by a screen, on the edge of the rink, as a matter of law assume the risk of being struck by a puck used in the game?

Does a spectator at an ice hockey game, who voluntarily selects a seat, which is not protected by a screen, on the edge of the rink, as a matter of law assume the risk of being struck by a puck used in the game?

Rule

The court held that the question of whether a spectator assumes the risk of being struck by a puck is a factual issue for the jury to decide. The defendants could be found negligent if they failed to provide adequate warnings or protective measures for spectators, as it is not common knowledge that pucks can be batted into the spectator area.

Although the state of New York holds to the contrary (Ingersoll v. Onondaga Hockey Club, Inc., 245 App.Div. 137, 281 N.Y.S. 505; Hammel v. Madison Square Garden Corporation, 156 Misc. 311, 279 N.Y.S. 815), we believe the correct rule of law to be that it is a question of fact to be determined by the jury from all of the evidence whether the defendants were negligent in not providing either notices warning patrons of danger from flying pucks or screens to protect the spectators in case a puck should be driven above the railing surrounding the rink.

Analysis

In applying the rule, the court noted that the average spectator does not have the same understanding of the risks associated with ice hockey as they do with baseball. The lack of protective screens and warnings in the Ice Palace contributed to the determination of negligence. The court emphasized that the jury should consider all evidence to assess whether the defendants acted reasonably in ensuring spectator safety.

However, the average person does not have the same knowledge respecting ice hockey or the risk of being hit by a flying puck while observing such a game. The game of ice hockey is practically a new one so far as the state of California is concerned and has only been played at regular intervals in this state for approximately twelve years last past.

Conclusion

The judgment in favor of the Ice Palace and the Associated Student Body of the University of Southern California was reversed, indicating that the case should be reconsidered based on the jury's assessment of negligence.

For the reasons set forth above the judgment in favor of Ice Palace, a corporation, and Associated Student Body of the University of Southern California is reversed.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, represented by Mary Katherine Thurman, did not prevail in the initial judgment, as the court ruled in favor of the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment against the Ice Palace and the Associated Student Body, allowing the case to proceed based on the jury's determination of negligence.

The judgment should be affirmed as to them.

You must be