Timothy F. Rayne, Esquire

Why victims of hockey puck, foul ball and golf shank injuries cannot recover damages

In certain personal injury cases, the injured party cannot recover damages because the risk confronted is common, frequent, and expected. In such cases, which include certain injuries occurring at sports facilities, the property owner cannot be held liable because the law places "no duty" to protect patrons from inherent risks associated with the activities. This article explains the elements that must be proven to win a personal injury case and why an injured party cannot recover damages due to errant hockey pucks, foul balls or golf shanks.

Elements of a Personal Injury Case
Most personal injury lawsuits (including auto accident, slip and fall, and medical malpractice cases) are pursued under the legal theory of negligence. Negligence is defined as the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances. There are three elements that must be proven in order to have a legal case of negligence:

• Duty: That someone had a "duty" to exercise care;
• Breach: The person with that duty breached the duty by failing to exercise care; and
• Damages: Because of the carelessness, someone else suffered harm.

As an example, let's apply a negligence analysis to a simple automobile accident.

• Duty: All drivers are required to exercise reasonable care when driving;
• Breach: Someone who runs a red light has been careless and has breached his or her duty; and
• Damages: The driver running the red light caused a collision and injuries to the other driver.

"No Duty" Cases
In some situations, courts have decided that, due to the inherent danger involved in certain activities, there will be "no duty of care" and, therefore, no case for negligence. Such a rule has been applied to spectators who are injured by errant pucks at hockey games and foul balls at baseball games. In addition, golfers who have been struck by shanked golf balls also have had the "no duty" rule applied to them.

Although devastating injuries can and have been caused by such incidents, the courts have dismissed the lawsuits brought by the injured parties under the rationale that the property owners have no duty to warn or protect people from the common, frequent, and expected risks inherent in those activities.

The courts have reasoned that, in such activities, the injured parties have voluntarily proceeded to encounter a known or obvious danger and have agreed to accept the risk and undertake to look out for themselves.

Lesson to Be Learned
The lesson to be learned by the "no duty" cases is – watch out for yourself, and be alert and careful while at inherently dangerous venues like sports stadiums, amusement parks, and other sports or entertainment areas. You must understand that you are there voluntarily and are agreeing to accept the risks and look out for yourself. Unfortunately for injured parties – but fortunately for certain property owners – the law does not provide a remedy for all injuries.

MacElree Harvey
17 West Miner Street
Post Office Box 660
West Chester, PA 19381–0660
p | 610.436.0100
f | 610.430.7885
f | 610.429.4486
e | info@macelree.com