Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P and her husband attended a fundraiser at a skating rink owned by D. P was thirty-three years old and an experienced skater. The skating area was raised three to five inches higher than the surrounding floor, which was carpeted. P noticed that there were no guardrails. P and her husband discussed this with the owner, who told them that this design was the practice at many new rinks to further safety by avoiding the use of guardrails which could become loose and collapse unexpectedly. P did not take skating lessons although they were offered to everyone at the fundraiser. Several signs reading 'skate at your own risk' were posted in the rink. The skaters included many children and inexperienced skaters. P skated behind a young child who fell. To avoid the child and a skater on her left, she swerved to the right onto the carpeted area. She fell and broke her left wrist. Her injury required surgery on the day of the accident and again one year later. P sued D. D claimed that P had assumed the risk of injury. The jury returned a verdict for P but found P 50% at fault, and the award was reduced from $50,000 to $25,000. The court denied D's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. This appeal resulted.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co