This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
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).
- Fall '07