22 février, 2008 13:59
N.J. Court Weighs Hockey Arena's Liability for Fan's Pre-Game Injury
Michael Booth
New Jersey Law Journal
02-22-2008
The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in a case that may clarify the scope of a 2005 decision that expanded the potential liability for spectator injuries.
At issue in Sciarrotta v. Global Spectrum et al., A-28-07, is the extent of a sports venue's duty to protect fans from injury -- a duty that until now has been limited to locations within the venue that are deemed most dangerous during games.
Hockey arenas, for example, are required, under Schneider v. American Hockey and Ice Skating Center Inc., 342 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2001), to screen the areas behind goals, where the risk of an errant puck is highest.
Plaintiff Denise Sciarrotta, however, was hit by a puck while seated in an area outside the protective screening at the Sovereign Bank Arena in Trenton, N.J., and the injury happened during team warm-ups, when about 50 pucks were in use.
Sciarrotta was waiting for her daughter to sing the national anthem at a Trenton Titans-Johnstown Chiefs game on Jan. 4, 2003. She was seated six rows from the ice -- higher than the Plexiglas sheet shielding fans in lower rows, and outside the end-zone screening -- when a shot banged off the side of one goal and flew into the stands, hitting her head.
A trial judge threw out her suit on summary judgment, finding that the arena satisfied the "heightened vulnerability" standard set in Maisonave v. The Newark Bears Professional Baseball Club, 185 N.J. 70 (2005), in which the state Supreme Court allowed a suit by a spectator hit by a foul ball while buying a beer from a vendor.
But an appeals panel reversed, finding that measures taken to protect fans in a game, when only a single puck is in play, might not be sufficient during warm-ups, when there are multiple pucks in use and fans are less able to follow the action.
At Wednesday's arguments, the lawyer for Sovereign Bank Arena's operators and the team said the defendants fully complied with the requirements of Schneider and Maisonave.
"There is a duty. We satisfied it," said Scott Samansky, of East Hanover, N.J.'s Fishman & Callahan. Did we breach the duty in any way? We did not."
Justice Barry Albin asked Samansky whether there is a greater chance of someone getting hurt with dozens of pucks flying around during warm-ups. Samansky conceded the dangers increased with the numbers of pucks, but said the greatest risk remained behind the goals.
Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto asked who is responsible for determining what areas are the most dangerous. Samansky said arena owners and teams have experts to help them make those decisions.
Rivera-Soto observed that rinks where amateur and youth games are played often are ringed completely by protective netting.
Samansky said there were many possible explanations for that. Those games can often be little more than social occasions for parents, who may not be paying attention like fans at a professional or college game.
Albin disagreed. "I'll give you one word: Insurance," he said.
Sciarrotta's lawyer, Lara Lovett of Lawrenceville, N.J.'s Stark & Stark, said the Appellate Division ruling did not expand the duty of care established by both Schneider and Maisonave.
Had Sovereign Bank Arena or the team posted signs warning about the dangers of warm-ups, or broadcast warnings over the public address system, the lawsuit would be properly dismissed.
"A warning or a simple sign would have prevented the injury and the lawsuit. A warning puts the responsibility back on the spectator," said Lovett.
Lovett said the Appellate Division properly found that the question of whether the arena and the team did enough to protect Sciarrotta is one that should be settled by a jury and was not a matter of interpretation of law.
Rivera-Soto asked whether anything in the record might indicate Sciarrotta would have been paying more attention during the warm-ups had there been warning signs or public address warnings.
"That was not asked during depositions," replied Lovett. "But she did say she had no idea a puck could hit her in the head where she was seated."
The arena had sought certification in the case based on Mauro v. The Trenton Thunder Baseball Club, A-3413-05, an unpublished Appellate Division ruling issued March 16, 2007. In that suit, in behalf of an 8-year-old girl hit in the face by a baseball between innings at the Mercer County Waterfront Park in Trenton, the court found the venue satisfied Maisonave's limited duty of care.
The Sovereign Arena defendants argued that the appeals panel in Sciarrotta erred in distinguishing between warm-ups and regular play and that the conflict with Mauro mandated Court review.
