Incident Date - 8/15/91; Suit Filed - 1993;

TRIAL - 2/94

Plaintiff, Sharron Bowery, a mid-twenties female, fell as she was exiting Defendant's skating surface on August 15, 1991. As a result of the fall, she sustained a very serious fracture to the ankle. She alleged she fell due to a dangerous/defective threshold separating the skating surface from the aisle. At trial, she reluctantly admitted upon cross-examination that the threshold appeared similar to prior visits to Northland Roller Rink. She further reluctantly admitted she did not know what allegedly caught her skate causing her to fall as she exited the skating surface. Based on these admissions, the trial court granted a Directed Verdict for Defendant.

Incident Date - 2/26/89; Suit Filed - 1990;

TRIAL - 4/94

Plaintiff, Gerald Schmidt, a mid-fifties gentleman, fell while roller skating at Bonaventure Skating Center during family night on February 26, 1989. He was in attendance with his wife having been invited by his niece who was a member of the Bonaventure Skating Center staff. Mr. Schmidt was allegedly knocked to the floor by an unruly patron sustaining a serious ankle fracture requiring open reduction/internal fixation. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's floor supervisors were in the snack bar eating "nachos and cheese" at the time of his injury, thereby explaining the alleged unsupervised skating surface. In fact, Plaintiff's niece, a member of the Bonaventure staff, testified in support of these propositions. Her testimony was convincingly rebutted by the testimony of Defendant's other staff members, together with that of independent witnesses. A jury returned a No Cause of Action in favor of Defendant. Noteworthy, Assumption of Risk was not an applicable defense as the incident date preceded the effective date of the Roller skating Safety Act of 1988 (March 30, 1989).

Incident Date - 11/11/90; Suit Filed - 1993;

TRIAL - 12/94

Plaintiff, Lillian Hartman, a mid-forties female, fell while roller skating at Northland Roller Rink on November 11, 1990, allegedly due to moisture on the skating surface. Plaintiff's allegation that a dangerous condition in the physical premises caused her fall precluded summary disposition or directed verdict based upon Assumption of Risk. As a result of her fall, Plaintiff sustained a fracture to the left ankle. At trial, she admitted upon cross-examination that she complained to no one at Northland Roller Rink that she fell due to alleged moisture on the floor. She also could not explain how the moisture caused her to fall given that she was skating straight down the floor and attempting no particular type of motion which might cause the skates to slip if in fact water was present. Defendant's owner/manager testified in support of the proposition that the roof was in good condition and there were no problems with leaks. Moreover, the National Climatic Data Survey revealed there was no precipitation on the date of the incident or for several days prior thereto. The jury returned a verdict of No Cause of Action in favor of Defendant.

Incident Date - 2/10/92; Suit Filed - 1993;

Summary Disposition Granted - 2/94

Plaintiff Appealed - Affirmed 5/96. See 1996 Case Summaries

Plaintiff, Carol Goggins, a 30-year-old female, was roller skating at Detroit Roller Wheels on February 10, 1992 as a member of a private church party. She and a number of her witnesses contend that the program was not reasonably supervised and she fell when a young skating patron allegedly skating in the wrong direction fell in front of her. As a result of her fall, she sustained a fracture to the right wrist. Following a Mediation Award in the amount of $25,000 for Plaintiff, the Court granted Summary Disposition to Defendant based upon the Assumption of Risk provisions of the Roller Skating Safety Act of 1988 (MCLA 445.1725). The Trial Court correctly ruled (reluctantly) that falls due to collisions with other skaters are risks assumed by patrons pursuant to the Statute, irrespective of the circumstances which allegedly bring about that collision. The Trial Court invited Plaintiff to appeal, which Plaintiff has done.

Incident Date - 9/27/92; Suit Filed - 1993;

Summary Disposition Granted - 3/94

Plaintiff Appealed - Affirmed 11/95. See 1995 Case Summaries

Plaintiff, Julie Skene, a mid-thirties female, fell while roller skating at Bonaventure Skating Center on September 27, 1992 when she was struck from behind by another adult skating patron. The other skater was named as a Co-Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's floor staff failed to provide reasonable supervision. Plaintiff sustained a fracture to the wrist as a result of this fall. The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition pursuant to the Assumption of Risk provisions of the Roller skating Safety Act of 1988 (MCLA 445.1725) finding that Plaintiff's injury was the result

of a collision with another skater which was a risk assumed pursuant to the Statute. Plaintiff has pursued an appeal.

Incident Date - 3/17/93; Suit Filed - 6/93;

Summary Disposition Granted - 8/94

Plaintiff Appealed - Affirmed 2/96. See 1995 Case Summaries

Plaintiff, Sharon Lawrenchuk, a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, fell while roller skating at Riverside Arena on March 17, 1993 when she lost her balance as she exited the skating surface. The skating surface at Riverside Arena is elevated approximately three inches above the carpeted floor. Warning signs hang over each exit and additional warnings are printed on the floor surface at each exit advising skaters of the step down. At her deposition, Plaintiff admitted she had used the exit in the past with no problem. She further admitted she observed her fiancé ahead of her as he skated across the exit with no problem moments before she exited and fell. At the close of discovery, Plaintiff identified no expert witness who would testify the step down condition was an unreasonably dangerous design. Defendant moved for summary disposition based upon the proposition that Plaintiff had no expert witness to testify the admitted condition was dangerous or defective and, therefore, her fall was a risk assumed. The Court agreed with Defendant's arguments that an expert witness would be necessary given that Defendant admitted the design and contended it was reasonable. Without an expert witness, Plaintiff's design defect theory was insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff has pursued an appeal.

Incident Date - 11/28/92; Suit Filed - 1993;

Plaintiff, Daniel O'Connell, a late-thirties single male, went to Rollerama on the evening of his injury to pick up his girlfriend's youngsters. He and his girlfriend decided to skate. As he entered the practice floor area, he fell after less than one circuit of the small skating area. As a result of this fall, Plaintiff sustained a serious fracture to the ankle requiring open reduction/internal fixation. He alleged a dangerous/defective condition in that the practice area did not have railings. However, at his deposition, he admitted he was some distance away from the wall where he alleged a railing should have been present. The Trial Court granted Summary Disposition finding that the lack of a railing was a design defect theory for which Plaintiff could not establish a proximate cause for his fall and, therefore, his fall was the result of risks reasonably attendant to the sport which he assumed.

Incident Date - 1/30/93; Suit Filed - 1994;

Summary Disposition Granted - 8/94

Plaintiff, Vickie Lanzon, a mid-thirties female, was in the company of her husband and another couple while roller skating at Shores Skateland on January 30, 1993. She testified she fell and sustained a fracture to her upper extremity when she was struck from behind by a teenage skater allegedly skating out of control and too fast. She and her witnesses all testified to the other skater's unruly conduct which purportedly had been observed on earlier occasions. Upon Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition, the Trial Court granted same issuing a lengthy written Opinion explaining that injuries due to collisions with other skaters are risks assumed irrespective of the circumstances which bring about that collision.

Incident Date - 9/29/93; Suit Filed - 10/93;

Summary Disposition Granted - 8/94

Plaintiff Appealed - Affirmed 2/96; S. Ct. Remand, Affirmed 3/99. See 1998/1999 Case Summaries

Plaintiff, Zaid Boykin, a 17-year-old male, and his friends attended the evening skating program at Northland Roller Rink on September 29, 1993. As they exited the building, one of Plaintiff's friends became involved in a fight. The person with whom Plaintiff's friend was fighting left the scene of the fight and moments later reappeared with a gun (apparently obtained from a nearby vehicle) and shot Plaintiff. One of the bullets struck Plaintiff in the spine and has left him permanently paralyzed. Defendant had security guards outside the building. Plaintiff alleged Defendant's security guards failed to perform their security function reasonably by failing to stop the fight, call the police, or stop the shooting. The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition pursuant to Scott v Harper Recreation, 444 Mich 441 (1993), finding that Plaintiff's theory in this case was akin to the proposition rejected in Scott that premises owners who provide security upon their premises could be held liable upon a theory that those security measures were less effective than they could or should have been. In Scott, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a premises owner could not be held liable for third-party criminal conduct based upon a theory that security measures undertaken were less effective than they could or should have been. The Scott Court correctly recognized that any other holding would encourage premises owners to do nothing at the risk of exposing themselves to more liability than might otherwise be present. In the landmark case, Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, 429 Mich 495 (1988), the Michigan Supreme Court held that a store owner's reasonable duty of care owed to business invitees did not extend to providing armed visible security guards to protect customers from criminal acts of third parties.

Incident Date - 1992; Suit Filed - 1993;

Summary Disposition Denied - 1994

Plaintiff Appealed - Reversed 8/96. See 1996 Case Summaries

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.