Incident Date - 5/19/93; Suit Filed - 6/18/95;

TRIAL: Verdict for Plaintiff $115,608.80 - 9/10/97

In Gonzalez, Plaintiff, a mid-thirties mother of two children, was attending an elementary school skating party at Plainfield Skating Center. She tripped and fell in the carpeted aisle, sustaining a fracture to her elbow. She contended that she fell due to a tennis shoe lace which had become entangled in her skate. She did not see the tennis shoe before she fell. She further contended the carpeted aisle was littered with clothes and other tennis shoes which she had observed earlier that evening. Defendant's staff members observed Plaintiff's fall and contend that she simply fell due to her loss of balance or control. The jury did not believe Defendant's witnesses and found in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $115,608.80. The case is under appeal.

Incident Date - 2/6/93; Suit Filed - 12/26/95

TRIAL: No Cause of Action for Defendant - 10/13/97

In Mayberry, Plaintiff was attending a Saturday afternoon skating session with her children. While skating on the skating surface, she felt her skate abruptly stop and fell forward sustaining a wrist fracture. After falling, an axle nut was observed approximately 30 to 40 feet away from where Plaintiff fell. Plaintiff exclaimed, "That's it - that's what I tripped over". Defendant acknowledged the nut in question had been found and was the type of nut used on all sorts of roller skates, including Defendant's rental skates. Defendant also acknowledged that there is no procedure for checking the tension of axle nuts on patrons' skates brought into the rink. The jury returned a verdict of No Cause of Action in favor of Defendant, agreeing with defense counsel's arguments that the Plaintiff presented no evidence of notice to Defendant when the alleged nut had been deposited on the skating surface.

Plaintiff appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The first hearing was decided May 1997 with the Michigan Court of Appeals affirming Summary Disposition for Defendant based on the interpretation of the Michigan Roller Skating Safety Act in the earlier case Skene v Fileccia. However, the Dale Panel at the Court of Appeals criticized the Skene interpretation explaining that it was affirming Summary Disposition in Dale v Beta-C only because it was compelled to do so because of the earlier decision in Skene v Fileccia with which it disagreed. As a result of this conflict and pursuant to Michigan Court Rule, a Special Panel of the Court of Appeals was convened to rehear the Dale appeal and resolve the conflict.

Unfortunately, following extensive oral arguments and five months of analysis, the Special Panel of the Court of Appeals adopted the analysis of the first Panel of the Court of Appeals in Dale criticizing the interpretation of the RSSA in Skene v Fileccia. While the Special Panel of the Court of Appeals found that Summary Disposition for Defendant was correct in Skene v Fileccia, they disagreed with the interpretation of the RSSA providing that where a collision occurs between two skaters, the negligence of the roller skating operator is irrelevant. The Special Panel in Dale (on rehearing) reversed Summary Disposition for Defendant holding that a skater does not assume the risk of an operator violating the prescribed duties under the Roller Skating Safety Act. As Plaintiff Dale had alleged that his rental skate was defective (missing a toe stop), the Special Panel of the Court of Appeals reversed Summary Disposition for Defendant finding that a question of fact had been created regarding Defendant's negligence as a cause in fact of Plaintiff's injury for which Plaintiff did not assume the risk.

Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court which was denied per Order entered September 29, 1998. Accordingly, the Special Panel's interpretation of the RSSA is the most current interpretation of the RSSA until such a time as the Supreme Court should choose to accept appeal of a case interpreting the RSSA which to date (2003) has not occurred.

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.