Issue link: http://read.uberflip.com/i/599904
STARRINKS.COM NOVEMBER.DECEMBER.2015 / 45 In most states, where assumption of the risk is a valid defense to a personal injury action, these claims are handled by playing to every self-respecting hockey player's pride—they nearly all admit that hockey necessarily involves con- tact, even when actual checking is not allowed. Plaintiffs often readily admit that they understood, before playing at the defendant facility, that collisions (and even checking) occur during "no-checking" hockey games and that injuries can result. In many cases, by taking a look at the score sheets for prior games and seasons, in which the plaintiff has par- ticipated, one can find instances where the plaintiff, himself, was penalized for some sort of physical infraction—roughing, cross-checking, slashing and the like. The fact is that just because a league is des- ignated as "no-checking" does not mean that checking, roughing or other physi- cal penalties never occur. In fact, they do occur, which is one of the reasons why the on-ice officials are present. The on- ice officials are there to penalize behavior that is anticipated, and even part of the game, but that is not supposed to occur in a given setting. When the facility's attorney is armed with complete and helpful score sheets, he can effectively use them to have the plain- tiff admit that he understood that penal- ties are part of the game, and that the rules of the game take physical infractions into account. In such instances, counsel can put the prior score sheets in front of the plaintiff and demonstrate that the plaintiff had, in fact, received penalties in other games for physical conduct that was outside the scope of that allowed in a "no- checking" league. Once this is established, the plaintiff is reduced to someone who knew the risks before playing, assumed those risks, and even dished out the type of improper conduct for which he is now suing the facility and perhaps even an opposing player. The lesson of this type of scenario is that consistent and detailed record- keeping for adult leagues is critical. Score sheets should be complete and easy to understand. They should be written neatly, even if it means that someone must re- write them immediately after the game to make them legible. Score sheets should be maintained for several years. Additionally, facilities should implement procedures by which score sheets are routinely reviewed by management to spot any trends of problematic behavior. In instances where particular players are regularly appearing on the score sheet for aggressive, physi- cal penalties, warnings, suspensions and expulsions should be handed out. This all translates to good supervision of the pro- grams on the part of the facilities, making cases arising from adult leagues much more defensible. J This article was originally published in the May/ June 2007 issue of RINK Magazine. Charles F. Gfeller is a partner with the law firm of Seiger Gfeller Laurie LLP and is resident in the firm's West Hartford, Conn. office. He focuses his practice on the representation of recreational facil- ities throughout the U.S., particularly ice arenas, providing risk management advice and litigation services. He can be reached at 860-760-8410 or cgfeller@sgllawgroup.com. Visit sgllawgroup.com for more information. , Keeping detailed score sheets can help identify problematic players before it results in injury. THE LESSON OF THIS TYPE OF SCENARIO IS THAT CONSISTENT AND DETAILED RECORD-KEEPING FOR ADULT LEAGUES IS CRITICAL.