Incident Date - 12/30/90; Suit Filed - 10/91;

Summary Disposition Granted - 11/92

Plaintiff Tucker, a mid-twenties female, alleged that she was struck from behind by an unruly skater causing her to fall and sustain a soft tissue injury to her knee. Surgery was performed to repair a pre-patellar contusion. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was negligent in failing to have reasonable and adequate control of its skating crowd. Summary Disposition was granted in favor of Skate World in November, 1992. The Court found that Plaintiff assumed the risk of her injury as a result of a collision with another skater pursuant to MCLA 445.1725. Plaintiff had rejected a Mediation of $3,750.00. As a result of her rejection, following Summary Disposition in favor of Defendant, the Court ordered that Plaintiff pay Defendant costs from Mediation through Summary Disposition in the amount of $1,106.00 which Plaintiff subsequently paid.

Incident Date - 3/27/91; Suit Filed - 1/92;

Summary Disposition Granted - 2/93-11/93

Plaintiff Davenport, a mid-thirties female, was struck from behind by an alleged unruly skater and fell sustaining a bimalleolar fracture of her right ankle. The injury required open reduction/internal fixation. She alleged that Defendant was negligent in failing to maintain reasonable and adequate control of the skating crowd. Noteworthy, Plaintiff also alleged aggravation of her injury as a result of Defendant negligently moving her from the location of her injury to the seating area off the skate floor. The Court granted Summary Disposition on the liability issue for the collision with another skater in February 1993, finding that Plaintiff assumed the risk of her injury as the result of collisions with other skaters pursuant to MCLA 445.1725. However, Plaintiff's aggravation of her injury theory survived. Following deposition of Plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon who admitted he could not determine whether there had been any aggravation of the physical injury by Plaintiff's movement after her fall, the Court granted Summary Disposition on the aggravation issue in November 1993. The Court, however, ruled that while the injury may not have been aggravated by movement, Plaintiff testified to increased pain. The Court allowed the issue of the negligence in moving Plaintiff after her fall and the value associated with any increased pain to remain as a question of fact for the jury. As these damages were deminimis, Plaintiff agreed to accept settlement of $350.00.

Incident Date - 9/22/90; Suit Filed - 1992;

Summary Disposition Granted - 4/30/93

Plaintiff, a 10-year-old girl, sustained an arm fracture when she fell exiting the skating surface. She alleged unruly skaters nearby (who did not collide with her) scared her such that she decided to leave the floor early resulting in her injury. The Court granted Summary Disposition finding that Plaintiff assumed the risk of her injury as a result of falls where the youngster admitted she fell because she lost balance or control (irrespective of why she decided to leave the floor).

Incident Date - 2/3/90; Suit Filed - 1992;

Summary Disposition Granted - 5/3/93

Plaintiff, a grandmother in her early 60s, took her grandson skating at Great Skate. She fell when allegedly struck from behind by a teenage skater purportedly skating out of control. She sustained a fracture of her wrist. The Court granted Summary Disposition pursuant to MCLA 445.1725 finding that Plaintiff sustained her injury as a result of a collision with another skater as she admitted at her deposition.

Incident Date - 10/13/91; Suit Filed - 1992;

Summary Disposition Granted - 6/93

Plaintiff Finley alleged that he was skating behind a trio during an all-skate when the middle member of the trio team stumbled, kicking him in the ankle. As a result of being kicked, he fractured his ankle and fell. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant was negligent in allowing a trio to skate during an all-skate. In a written Opinion, Judge Simmons of the Wayne County Circuit Court found that Plaintiff sustained his injury as a result of a collision with another skater and granted Summary Disposition in favor of Defendant. Judge Simmons noted in the written Opinion that while there were no Court of Appeals Opinions on the Roller Skating Safety Act, cases interpreting similar provisions of the Ski Area Safety Act warranted Summary Disposition under these circumstances as had been argued in Defendant's Brief.

Incident Date - 9/22/90; Suit Filed - 1992;

Summary Disposition Granted - 6/93

Plaintiff Wilder, a mid-thirties female, fractured her arm while standing on the carpeted perimeter at Defendant skating center when two skaters collided on the skating surface and fell into Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged a failure to properly supervise the skating crowd and an alleged defective design of the premises because there was no railing separating the skating surface from the off-skate floor area. The Court granted Summary Disposition pursuant to MCLA 445.1725 finding that Plaintiff sustained her injury as a result of a collision with another skater irrespective of where that collision occurs.

Incident Date - 1/5/91; Suit Filed - 1992;

Summary Disposition Granted - 7/93

Plaintiff Todd, a late-twenties female, sustained a fractured ankle when she was allegedly struck from behind by an unruly skater while roller skating at Northland Roller Rink. She alleged a failure to maintain proper supervision. Judge Cahalan of the Wayne County Circuit Court granted Summary Disposition pursuant to MCLA 445.1725. In his written Opinion, he agreed with Defendant's analogy to cases interpreting similar provisions of the Ski Area Act that where an injury occurs as a result of an identified risk, the conduct of the participant (skater or skier) and the ski area operator/skating center operator was irrelevant.

Incident Date - 2/10/92; Suit Filed 2/93;

Summary Disposition Granted - 12/93

Plaintiff, a 30-year-old female, was struck by another young skater allegedly going in the wrong direction. She alleged a failure to properly supervise the skating crowd. She sustained a fracture of her right wrist. In a detailed oral Opinion issued from the bench, Judge Thomas of the Wayne County Circuit Court granted Summary Disposition finding that Plaintiff sustained her injury as a result of a collision with another skater which is a risk she assumed pursuant to MCLA 445.1725. He agreed with Defendant's arguments relying on cases interpreting similar provisions of the Ski Area Act but invited Plaintiff's counsel to appeal his decision as there were no cases on point interpreting the Roller Skating Safety Act.

Incident Date - 12/16/91; Suit Filed - 10/92;

Summary Disposition Granted - 12/17/93

This case was a consolidation of three separate claimants (all teenagers) who sustained gunshot wounds while patrons at Royal Skateland on a Saturday afternoon program in November 1991. While Defendant uses metal detectors to search patrons entering for evening and adult programs, they are admittedly not used during the Saturday afternoon sessions attended by younger patrons. The assailant/shooter, a 15-year-old male, carried in a small caliber semi-automatic pistol hidden in his clothing. In the course of an altercation with the minor McQueen, the assailant pulled the weapon and began shooting indiscriminately striking five individuals. In November 1993, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Scott v Harper Recreation - which held that the performance of certain security functions on one occasion does not imply a duty to perform them on all occasions and a business owner cannot be held liable for third-party criminal conduct on the theory that the Defendant's safety measures are less effective than they could or should have been. Following publication of the Scott decision, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Disposition which was granted on December 17, 1993. Plaintiffs have pursued an appeal.

Incident Date - 8/6/89; Suit Filed - 12/91;

TRIAL: No Cause, February 1993

Plaintiff, a 30-year-old man, fell and fractured his right ankle at Royal Skateland allegedly due to a warp in the skating surface. Two witnesses at trial testified that they were present and observed the alleged warp. Extensive documentary evidence presented by Defendant established that Defendant had repaired a warp in the floor weeks before Plaintiff's injury, the warp having occurred due to water damage. Plaintiff requested damages in excess of $200,000 from the jury. After several hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of No Cause of Action in favor of Defendant.

Incident Date - 1/22/91; Suit Filed - 1/92;

TRIAL: Directed Verdict, August 1993

Plaintiff, a 9-year-old boy, was attending a school skating party at Skateland West when he fell sustaining a soft tissue ankle injury. He alleged his rental skates were the wrong size and laced in an improper fashion by Defendant's employee allegedly causing his fall. At the close of Plaintiff's proofs, Defendant moved for a Directed Verdict for Plaintiff's failure to present evidence that the way in which Defendant's employee purportedly tied the skate was either improper or a proximate cause of the injury. The Judge agreed with Defendant's arguments and granted a Directed Verdict.

Incident Date - 12/29/91; Suit Filed - 6/92;

TRIAL: No Cause, September 1993

Plaintiff, Janet Thomas, allegedly slipped and fell on ice/snow outside the skating center as she was getting into her car. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had improperly plowed snow up against parking curbs creating an obstacle for patrons to step over. Defendant contended that Plaintiff was trespassing as the area that she allegedly came from to get to her car was not designed for pedestrian traffic. Defendant further challenged Plaintiff's credibility in regard to whether the incident occurred at Defendant's premises given inconsistent testimony by Plaintiff and her witnesses. The jury deliberated for less than an hour before returning a No Cause of Action in favor of Defendant.

Home || Trial Results || Firm Overview || Practice Areas || Attorney Profiles || Representative Clients || Contact Form || Email || What's New

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Copyright © 2010 by Anselmi & Mierzejewski, P.C. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.