Hills v. Skate Country East, Inc.

Citation: 430 So. 2d 1035Docket: CA 0080

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 3, 1983; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Elaine Hills v. Skate Country East, Inc., the Court of Appeal of Louisiana addressed an appeal by Skate Country East and its insurer regarding a jury verdict that favored Hills after she was injured in a fall while skating. The primary issues were whether the jury's finding of negligence by Skate Country and the determination that Hills did not assume the risk of her injury were supported by the record.

Hills and her husband were participating in a "couples only" skating event when they were unexpectedly bumped by another couple who entered the rink from a carpeted area. Despite the presence of a floor guard, there was no evidence the offending couple was misbehaving at the time of the incident. Testimony indicated that Hills expected a safe environment during the event, where only couples could skate together, and she believed that the event protocol would prevent other skaters from entering the floor once it began.

Hills argued that Skate Country failed to take necessary precautions, such as posting guards at the entrances, to prevent single skaters from entering during the event. Conversely, the defendants contended that it was customary for couples to join the rink even after the event had started, leading to conflicting witness accounts. The jury resolved this conflict in favor of Hills.

The court noted that operators of amusement facilities are not insurers of patron safety but can be held liable for negligence. It acknowledged that while some risks, such as bumping, are inherent in roller skating, the context of the "couples only" event created a specific expectation of safety that was breached. The court upheld the jury's findings, despite the defendants' argument that their interpretation of the circumstances was more reasonable.

Defendants argue that improper jury instructions led to an erroneous verdict, citing the Hyland and Katz cases to request special instructions under LSA C.C.P. Art. 1793. They assert that participation in a sport entails assuming ordinary risks, such as the likelihood of losing balance while roller skating at the defendant's rink. The defendants emphasize that the plaintiff, as a skater, should have anticipated the risk of falling due to her own actions or those of other patrons, including the jostling typical in a roller rink setting. 

The trial court instructed that the doctrine of assumption of risk applies when a plaintiff is aware of and voluntarily accepts the risks associated with an activity. The burden lies with the defendants to prove that the plaintiff understood and accepted the risks involved. If the jury finds that the plaintiff did assume the risk, they must rule in favor of the defendant; if not, and if the defendant's negligence caused the injury, the verdict should favor the plaintiff.

The court noted that while operators of amusement venues must exercise reasonable care to prevent injuries, they are not liable for all risks. It acknowledged that jostling is an inherent risk of roller skating, referencing the insufficiency of jury instructions in Phillips v. Skate Country East, which failed to include language regarding the assumption of ordinary risks. However, the court concluded that the instructions provided were adequate, as they addressed the risks involved and mentioned jostling. The court determined that the charge, albeit imperfect, did not constitute reversible error and that the jury's findings should be respected under the manifest error rule, which protects factual conclusions made by the jury from being overturned by the court unless found to be legally incorrect.

The jury determined that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of being bumped by a skater entering the rink, differentiating this from the risk of being bumped by skaters already on the floor. The jury recognized the greater risk associated with free skating compared to couples-only skating, which the plaintiff emphasized in her testimony. To hold the facility operator liable, the jury had to find a breach of duty regarding this unassumed risk. However, the findings were legally unsustainable. The plaintiff could not be considered contributorily negligent for failing to anticipate the sudden entrance of an unidentified couple, as the rink's design allowed for easy access through breaks in a wall, and announcements prohibited skaters from entering after the music started. The plaintiff argued that the operator should have had guards to prevent such incidents, but no number of guards could have stopped the couple’s abrupt entry. Additionally, there was no causal link between the absence of guards and the couple's actions. The plaintiff also claimed a breach of duty regarding the absence of signs or announcements, but again, no causal connection was established. Citing Dorry v. La Fleur, the court noted that assumption of risk applies only to risks the plaintiff actually knows, while also indicating that a person's awareness of risks can be objectively evaluated. Despite the plaintiff acknowledging the risk of being bumped, she claimed not to expect a collision from an entering skater. However, given her visibility over the wall and awareness of skaters exiting the rink, she should have recognized the possibility of being bumped by someone entering. Thus, as a matter of law, she would not have a claim if she were knocked down by another skater during free skating or by someone entering the rink.

The jury's finding regarding the plaintiff's degree of care was contested, as it was concluded that she should have been vigilant against potential collisions, regardless of the event type. The risk of being bumped was deemed consistent whether from behind or the side, highlighting no significant distinction based on the environment. Testimony from Ada Bercey indicated that an unidentified couple had been behaving recklessly prior to the accident, which could imply that the rink operator should have intervened. However, unlike in the precedent case of Phillips, where ongoing reckless behavior was linked to the accident, the couple's rowdiness occurred well before and away from the incident. They were not engaged in any disruptive conduct immediately prior to the accident, undermining the argument for operator liability. Although Bercey's testimony raised questions about the operator's duty to expel rowdy patrons, the evidence did not convincingly support that such expulsion was warranted. The possibility of lesser penalties, such as a warning or temporary removal, was considered but ultimately deemed insufficient to establish a breach of duty that would have prevented the accident.

Bercey's testimony indicated she did not closely monitor the couple involved in the incident prior to the accident, and the floor guard's statements suggested it was common practice to warn or remove rowdy skaters. However, there was no evidence that a prior warning or removal would have prevented the couple from colliding with the plaintiff. Consequently, the connection between the alleged breach of duty and the risk encountered was not sufficiently supported by evidence. As a result, the court reversed the previous judgment and ruled in favor of the defendants, Skate Country East, Inc. and Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, while dismissing Elaine Hills' lawsuit at her expense. Judge Williams dissented, expressing concern over the decision in Phillips v. Skate Country East, Inc. and arguing that the jury's finding of breach was not manifestly erroneous. He criticized the majority's reasoning as strained and noted that inconsistent rulings could confuse litigants and undermine judicial guidance.