Featured Article:

Negligence Standard or Recklessness Standard – Which Standard of Care Applies to Injured Spectator of a Snowmobile Race?

By Doyice Cotten

Spectators Tory Baughan and Megan MacNeill were injured while watching a snowmobile “hillclimb” racing event. They were in the designated, but unprotected, spectator area when one of the racers became dismounted from his Polaris snowmobile on his way up the hill. The driverless snowmobile continued to travel back down the hill at a high rate of speed before colliding with plaintiffs. Baughan sued claiming negligence, premises liability, gross negligence, and willful and wanton misconduct (Baughan v. Mid Am. Snow & Terrain Expert Racers, 2018).

Major Issue

The key issue before the court was the appropriate standard of care owed the plaintiff. The trial court stated that the “recklessness” standard of care applied in this case (which would hold the provider liable for recklessness, but not liable for negligence). The appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the defendant was owed a duty of ordinary care (which would hold the provider liable for negligence).

Analysis

In Michigan, as in most states, co-participants are held to the “recklessness” standard; hence, one participant is not generally liable for injuries to a co-participant that involves only ordinary negligence. This standard was applied in a Michigan ice skating case (Richie-Gamester v. City of Berkley, 1999). This concept was also applied in a baseball spectator case (Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 2001), following the generally accepted stance of not holding baseball stadium operators liable for injuries resulting from foul balls hit into the stands (providing reasonable protected seating was usually available).

The trial court erroneously likened a spectator in a baseball stadium to that of the plaintiff being injured by a riderless snowmobile. Therefore, they applied the recklessness standard.  The appellate court, in reversing the decision, reasoned as follows:

The trial court’s reasoning is flawed because it equates the risk of being struck down by a driverless snowmobile at a snowmobile race with that of objects leaving the field at a baseball game. However, the Benejam Court was careful to discuss the “inherent risk”—of which fans are aware—”of objects leaving the playing field” “as a natural result of play.” As a natural consequence of the game of baseball, objects leave the field; balls are struck, and they often leave the boundaries of the field, in an attempt to score runs. Conversely, a rider becoming dismounted from a snowmobile during a snowmobile race is not a natural consequence of the race because riders do not routinely dismount their snowmobiles in an attempt to win. Therefore, the risk of being struck by a driverless, runaway snowmobile is not an “inherent risk” that occurs as a “natural result” of the race.

This court summarized that in this case, plaintiff’s injury (unlike a spectator being struck by a baseball) was not a natural consequence of spectating at a snowmobile race. It explained that a person observing a snowmobile racing event “’does not reasonably expect or anticipate the risk of physical contact, nor is the risk of being struck by a driverless, runaway snowmobile an ‘obvious or necessary danger’ inherent in the competitive operation of snowmobiles.”

Ruling

The court held that the appropriate standard of care in this case was the standard of ordinary care.  They reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Risk Management Take-away

  • The appropriate standard of care for spectators is generally that of ordinary care. It would behoove providers and operators to take care of spectators by 1) erecting barriers for protection and 2) seeing that spectator areas are a safe distance from the action. (It might be noted that in some states the immunity provided baseball operators seems to be crumbling and that much action has been taken in most major league stadiums to add protection by extending screening.)

Photo Credit: Thanks to Andrew_Writer  via Flickr.

 

 

Read the Article

Recent Articles:

Evaluating a Waiver

By Doyice Cotten   In waiver cases, a court has to determine if the liability waiver does, indeed, protect the defendant from liability for negligence. In this post, we will examine a recent waiver addressed in Garvine v. Maryland, (2018) to see how courts address this task and give the reader a little insight into the sometimes complicated process of evaluation.   Waiver in Question Oxford Feed &... [read more]

Risk Management Procedures Help Save Utah Snowmobile Operator from Liability

By Doyice Cotten Matthew Rose rented a 2014 Polaris snowmobile from Summit Lodge. While approaching an opening in a wooden fence on the snowmobile, the throttle stuck on full-throttle and resulted in an injury to Rose. The snowmobile has a thumb-operated throttle lever for acceleration; release of the lever is supposed to return the machine to idle. Normally, the machine has two methods of manual shut-off: a kill switch or by turning the key to off.... [read more]

Risk Management at Two Popular Tourist Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina

By Doyice Cotten Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereafter referred to as Bosnia) is a beautiful country in southeastern Europe. There is much to see; but also much you need to watch for to avoid injury. Mostar Bridge. The first popular site at which I saw a number of hazards was at and near the famous bridge at Mostar. The bridge was destroyed in the war in 1993, but has since been nicely restored (pictured here). First,... [read more]

Duration of a Waiver at Issue in a Pennsylvania ATV Case

By Doyice Cotten This author has frequently written about the duration of liability waivers. In a three-part series in 2017, posts addressed a Virgin Islands waiver written intending a one-year duration where the injury occurred after the one-year period – the court ruled it to be unenforceable; another waiver case involved a waiver which did not specify a duration and the Pennsylvania court ruled such a waiver unenforceable; and a third waiver case examined a waiver which did not state a duration – the Massachusetts court held the duration of a contract does not extend forever but only for a reasonable time (which is up to the court to determine).... [read more]

Failure to Properly Name Protected Parties Results in a Reversal in Favor of the Plaintiff

By Doyice Cotten Bradford Jones and his son Forbes collided with each other while riding jet skis. Bradford was injured and subsequently sued both The Barge, LLC and its owner David Hubert. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants based on the liability waiver signed by Jones prior to the ride. It should be noted that the waiver listed The Barge, LLC as a protected party, but the ownership and legal status of the business had changed several times over the years and at the time of the accident,... [read more]

Lack of Equipment Inspections and Concern for Client Safety Is a Shortcut to Lawsuits

By Doyice Cotten Lawsuits against health clubs are abundant – with dozens each year. There are many allegations in such suits ranging from failure to supervise, to employing uncertified personnel, to bad judgment of personal trainers, and many more causes of injury. One of the most frequent causes of injury has two prongs: 1) failure to regularly (as in daily) inspect the premises  and equipment; and 2) failure to maintain and keep equipment in good repair. The photos in this post illustrate a potential problem that could result in a client injury and in a possible negligence lawsuit.... [read more]