“In a decision that could have ripple effects across Long Island’s East End summer playground, a Suffolk Supreme Court justice hearing a swimming pool accident case has ruled that a sharehouse owner may be held to the same liability standards as the owner of a hotel, motel or inn.” After Flavio Fornaro injured himself diving, his lawyers argued that the owner of the house in Quogue should have mounted decals on the swimming pool to indicate relative depths, a step that might be standard for a hotel or motel pool but which is not expected of homeowners. A judge ruled that the claim could go to trial. “The decision could create a whole host of new and previously unanticipated duties for both rental property owners and others who have pay-to-attend events at their homes.” One Riverhead attorney wondered whether the hiring of lifeguards might be required, and a realtor called the decision “quite disturbing”, with its implication that prudent private owners might need to mimic the safety precautions of commercial establishments: “You can’t take a person’s residence and make it a Starbucks.” (Andrew Harris, “Sharehouse Owners Held to Public Accommodations Standards in Pool Accident Case”, New York Law Journal, Nov. 2).
Posts Tagged ‘sports’
Court: workers’ comp covers hockey-fight injury
Confirming every suspicion about ice hockey:
A former minor-league hockey player who injured his shoulder in a fight he claimed his coach told him to start is entitled to workers’ compensation, a Virginia appeals court ruled.
The Virginia Court of Appeals upheld a Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that “fighting is an integral part of the game of hockey” and that Ty A. Jones’ injury arose in the course of his employment as an “enforcer.”
(Sonja Barisic, “Court: Workers’ comp covers hockey player”, AP/Detroit News, Nov. 4).
Stadium patdowns
Greg Skidmore at Sports Law Blog (who has guest-blogged on this site) analyzes the ACLU-aided suit against the Tampa Sports Authority challenging the National Football League’s anti-terror measures.
The Eddy Curry quandary
Prawfsblawg can be remarkably entertaining sometimes thanks to the efforts of Kate Litvak, who should have her own blog. Basketball player Eddy Curry may or may not have a genetic heart condition that could kill him. The Chicago Bulls refused to let him play without a DNA test that (perhaps) could determine whether he has the condition. Curry refused the test, and the standoff was resolved by a trade to a different team that didn’t require the DNA test.
The Bulls’ concern was no doubt magnified by the fear of liability and the inability to trust Illinois courts to enforce a waiver as legally binding, raising second-order questions of genetic privacy and discrimination. Cf. the similar questions in the Johnson Controls case, 499 U.S. 187 (1991).
The post is interesting enough. But if you have an aversion to sports, you might have missed the real fun in the comments.
N.J. high court okays foul-ball suit
A classic application of the assumption-of-risk doctrine was the rule that ballpark owners were not liable when a foul ball hit into the stands injured a fan. But assumption of risk has been less than popular in the law schools for a long time, and is under constant pressure from the plaintiff’s bar, which would like to curtail or eliminate it. Now, per Law.com, the New Jersey Supreme Court has rolled back the foul-ball rule as regards parts of a stadium devoted to concessions, mezzanines and so forth, though apparently not (yet) seating areas. One likely result: more installation of netting and other screening, even if it impairs fans’ viewing experience. (cross-posted from Point of Law)
Youth football league needn’t re-weigh 11-year-old
Suburban Detroit:
A Macomb County judge refused Thursday to order a Sterling Heights flag football league to reweigh or reinstate an 11-year-old boy who was too heavy at his official weigh-in to play for the league.
Circuit Judge Deborah A. Servitto said that Kyle St. Peter of Sterling Heights would not suffer irreparable harm if he is not allowed to play with the Sterling Football Club, which begins its season Sunday….
The league requires 11- and 12-year-olds to weigh 150 pounds or less on the day they pick up their equipment.
Kyle weighed 164 pounds Aug. 2, the day he received his helmet and flags, but the league’s commissioner gave him two more weigh-ins. On the last one, Aug. 14, he weighed 151 pounds on the league’s scale — 2 pounds more than he weighed at home that morning.
(Nate Trela, “Boy loses fight to play football”, Detroit Free Press, Sept. 9)(hat tip: Insider Online).
No constitutional right to play college sports
College sports dodges a bullet: the Texas Supreme Court, reversing a court of appeals below, has ruled that a star college-level athlete’s reputation and future earning potential do not rise to the level of a property interest creating due process rights under the state’s constitution. The court rejected “a lawsuit by former Big 12 champion and Singapore swimmer Joscelin Yeo, who claimed the University of Texas damaged her reputation by ruling her ineligible to compete after she transferred from another school.” (Jim Vertuno, “Texas Supreme Court rules against former UT swimmer”, AP/Denton (Tex.) Record-Chronicle, Aug. 26; Doug Lederman, “Do Some Athletes Matter More?”, InsideHigherEd, Aug. 30)(opinion/lower court opinion).
Yosemite rock-climber’s survivors sue
The parents of a rock climber killed by a rock slide while climbing a face at Yosemite National Park have sued the National Park Service for $10 million, armed with the theory of a maverick professor who believes overflow from a waste-water system lubricated and weakened the face. An attorney for the park warns that if the suit is successful it could lead to bans on rock-climbing at Yosemite and elsewhere, and many climbers side with the park, saying those who take up the sport should assume the risk of rock slides. (Eric Bailey, “Another peril for climbers”, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 22; Jerry Bier, “Suit filed in Yosemite rock-slide death”, Fresno Bee, Nov. 4, 2001)(via Southern California Law Blog). Spartacus comments (Aug. 22). Update Dec. 17: court dismisses suit.
Blawg Review #18
This week’s roundup of legal blogs (“blawgs”) is hosted by Monica Bay at The Common Scold and is baseball-themed. We’re listed under “New York City” and come in for some kind words (“always-entertaining… guaranteed to be provocative”).
Colorado’s highest peaks, off bounds
Among mountain climbers, no American state compares to Colorado with its 54 “14ers” — peaks over 14,000 feet high. According to the Colorado Mountain Club, more than 1,000 persons have accomplished the feat of climbing all 54 of them. But climbers are now facing a new obstacle: some of the trails up to the peaks pass through private land, and liability fears are changing landowners’ minds about granting access:
“We’ve known for years that people are climbing on our land,” said Maurice Reiber, whose Earth Energy Resources Co. owns chunks of several 14ers. “The reason we asked the Forest Service to do something about it this year is because society has changed.
“Let’s face it,” Reiber continued, “this is a lawsuit-happy country nowadays. If somebody breaks through a gate up there and falls into an old mine shaft, they might decide to sue me. The liability question is the issue we’ve got to resolve.”
The Forest Service said there has been no such legal action to date. But many peak-baggers sympathize with the landowners’ concern.
“Here’s a guy who’s generous enough to let people use his property for free,” noted T.J. Rapoport, a veteran climber who runs the Colorado Fourteeners Initiative, an environmental group. “But the lawyers tell us there is no waiver, no release he could design that would definitely protect him against a jury verdict.”
(T.R. Reid, “Private Obstacles Block Climb to 14,000-Foot Peaks”, Washington Post, Jul. 17).
P.S. Reader Jay Strickland writes to ask, “Does Colorado have a recreational use statute like we have here in Georgia? The statutes (OCGA 51-3-20 through 51-3-26) absolve owners of liability, except for willful and wanton acts, for giving free access to their property. Similar legislation would seem to address these concerns.”
Colorado attorney Aaron J. Hill responds: Yep, Colorado has a recreational use statute (CRSA 33-41-101 et seq.)(out of date version here). But the carve-out in Section 104 is broad enough that any owner with a known hazard (i.e. mineshafts) or that is using its land for commercial purposes would be ill advised to rely on it. I’m guessing that Earth Energy Resources has some commercial purpose for that land.
“On the other hand, property owners can limit their liability by leasing the land to a public entity for recreational purposes (or granting an easement or other use right). I have helped other land owners grant easements to local recreation districts to take advantage of this additional protection.” Update Jan. 22: bill introduced in state legislature to help.