RECENT TRENDS

RECENT TRENDS IN ROLLER SKATING CENTER LITIGATION

1. STATE LEGISLATURES EMBRACE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE FOR ROLLER SKATING CENTERS: TWO STATUTORY SCHEMES (See Michigan's Roller Skating Safety Act (RSSA))

   1. MICHIGAN (1989), MAINE (1991), GEORGIA (1993)
      Inherent dangers (obvious and necessary) are assumed - collisions
      Operator's compliance with Safety Act not condition precedent to application of Assumption of Risk defense

   2. NEW JERSEY (1991), OHIO (1995), ILLINOIS (1996), INDIANA (1995)
      Inherent risks (obvious and necessary) are assumed - "incidental" contact
      Operator's compliance with Safety Act condition precedent to application of Assumption of Risk defense

   3. TEXAS - AN ABERRATION

2. MICHIGAN ROLLER SKATING SAFETY ACT (RSSA) FIRST INTERPRETED (SKENE - 1995) THEN REVISED (DALE - 1997)

   1. COLLISIONS ARE RISKS ASSUMED BY ROLLER SKATERS IRRESPECTIVE OF ALLEGED BREACH OF OPERATOR'S DUTIES

      1. Skene v Fileccia (1995)

      2. Goggins v Detroit Roller Wheels (1996)

      3. Zeiman v Skate World (1996)

   2. OPERATOR'S COMPLIANCE WITH DUTIES UNDER SKATING ACT NOT CONDITION PRECEDENT TO APPLICATION OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE

      1. Skene v Fileccia

      2. Bar v Mt. Brighton

   3. DALE V BETA-C OVERRULES SKENE - ROLLER SKATER DOES NOT ASSUME RISK THAT OPERATOR WILL VIOLATE PRESCRIBED DUTIES
      Dale v Beta-C (1997)

3. PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINTS ATTEMPT TO PLEAD IN AVOIDANCE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK

   1. CLAIMS INCREASE ALLEGING DEFECTIVE SKATES AND PREMISES
      Lawrenchuk v Riverside

   2. IMPORT OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE MAY DEPEND ON STATUTORY SCHEME