Schneider vs. American Hockey and Ice Skating Center

Schneider vs. American Hockey and Ice Skating Center - no...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Econ 404 02:29:28 rmf34 Schneider vs. American Hockey and Ice Skating Center Judge(s): Skillman Court: Superior Court of New Jersey (Location, Date): July 2001. Plaintiff : Colleen Schneider and Mark Schneider Case Summary : Spectator was struck by a hockey puck and brought a personal injury suite against the operator of the hockey rink. The hockey rink didn’t breach the limited duty of care that it owed to the spectator. The rink operator has a limited duty to provide a protected area for spectators who chose not to be exposed to the risk posed by flying pucks and to screen any spectator area that is subject to a high risk of flying pucks. There was an area that was totally screened off, and higher in the bleachers, there was limited or
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: no protection. This is a question of how much protection is necessary to be provided by the hockey rink. There is clearly a limited duty. The plaintiff didnt show that the rink didnt perform its duty of protection. There were hockey boards (3 feet) and plexiglass wall above the boards (3-4 feet above the boards). Defense : American Hockey and Ice Skating Center Inc. Verdict : The case is dropped, the rink fulfilled its limited duty to provide safe seating and the attendee knowingly sat in a seat with risk. They assumed this risk when they chose their seat. Law and Economics Notes : Limited duty not fully netted, but provide ample seating that is safe from the risk of flying pucks and balls....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/11/2007 for the course ECON 4040 taught by Professor Hay during the Fall '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Ask a homework question - tutors are online