Lynah Rink Refurbishment

Didn't a student-spectator die from a puck injury to the head at Lynah in the late '70's or early '80's? If I remember, he was in section G or H before the big net. I don't remember if it took a lawsuit, but I am pretty sure the university paid the family a substantial sum.

The back of the ticket is Cornell's attempt to limit or exclude liability. The state of the law now is that you (Cornell, a homeowner, a motorist) should give thought to what are potential dangers and consequences. Cornell couldn't take railings off the bridge to allow for easier snow-plowing and post signs, "Caution - hazardous pedestrian crossing."

Cornell had a hockey fatality circa 1976/77, a fan struck in the head by a puck.

I think the warning on the back is Cornell's way of saying, "We think the occasional puck goes out the sides [not ends] of the rink and you have to be observant. It's only a handful, probably not shot as hard, usually, as ones going out the ends." So the really safety-conscious or liability-conscious rinks do side netting, too, and it's terrible. That's why I was asking about whether anyone knew of a rink where the end glass went up, say, 50 feet, not just 15 or 20 feet from rink level. I don't think so (imagine the hassles tearing down for basketball).

You may notice news photographers who sit in the photo pits next to the penalty or team boxes now are wearing - forced to - helmets.

Here's an article about the Blue Jacket's incident:

[espn.go.com]

Interesting point about the terms on the back of the ticket being imposed after the sale of the ticket. (Since you don't see the ticket until you buy it) I've never bought a ticket that is refundable, so it's not like you can get a refund if you don't like those terms. Most likely in any of the cases there's just a settlement anyway. The team/universtiy would just look like jerks to fight the family of some poor kid in court.

[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

Anybody remember what happened with the girl who died at the Bluejackets game a couple years ago? I know the NHL put nets up after that, but I don't remember if there was any legal action. I guess I can go look it up....[/q]

I was actually watching that game because it was against the Flames. I believe they settled out of court on a couple hundred grand if I remember correctly. Of course medically speaking it was the way the girl reacted to the puck, not the actual puck hitting her that caused the severe blood clot that eventually killed her.

[Q]Facetimer Wrote:Bear with me as I am not up to snuff on New York laws (perhaps Counsellor Beeeej can help me out). However it is generally the case that exculpatory clauses such as the release on the back of your ticket do not absolve the University from wrongdoing where they have acted in bad faith or with gross negligence (willful disregard for the safety of others).[/q]

Well, that's just it - barring a really unusual circumstance where a player acts in a highly unusual manner that results in the injury-by-puck, you'd have an enormous uphill battle convincing a court that there was negligence or recklessness. If hockey is what normally happens in the rink, just about any act that can be considered a reasonable part of a hockey game will fall outside the category of negligence or recklessness; and by buying a ticket to the game, you've demonstrated your intent to watch it.

The other reason for the disclaimer/release on the ticket, of course, is that it could help demonstrate contributory negligence - in other words, that the fan played a part in his/her own injury or death by knowingly participating in a potentially dangerous event. This would be especially true if it could be demonstrated that the injured person wasn't paying attention at the time of the injury.

As for filing, there's really nothing that could stop a lawyer from filing a suit that you and I might see as frivolous. He and his client just have to be prepared for the consequences, e.g., spending a lot of money on a suit that gets thrown out at the pleading stage. And as much as "deep pockets" like Cornell would probably prefer to see such things go away, settling relatively meritless cases with large cash payments is one of the things that tends to encourage lawsuits, rather than discouraging them.

Anyway, as usual, I'm not qualified to give a "real" legal opinion, but the above, combined with the other factors other people have brought up, should give you an idea.

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

Anyway, as usual, I'm not qualified to give a "real" legal opinion.[/q]

Well said.

It's not any of the hockey players that are acting negligently. It's guys like rink manager Phil Graham and the Cornell administration that know of the risks at Lynah and refuse to change anything. Graham, et al. have the duty of care to prevent anyone from getting injured at a game. By failing to, at minimum, use 8 foot glass that is the standard at hockey rinks, they breach their duty of care.

Just ask fellow poster jy3, who took a puck off the head last year. If the puck hit him a little lower near the temple, he might be dead. In his case, the puck just cleared the boards and was traveling at a high velocity. Higher boards would have prevented the puck from getting into the stands. And I know jy3 was attentive and alert throughout the game (unlike that group of sorority girls that sat behind him).

Cornell needs to take this issue seriously when they plan the Lynah expansion. But talking to Phil Graham can best be described as:

[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

Here's an article about the Blue Jacket's incident:



Most likely in any of the cases there's just a settlement anyway. The team/universtiy would just look like jerks to fight the family of some poor kid in court.[/q]

This is the point. Risk managers are paid to limit the institution's financial exposure. In the long run it may be cheaper just to install the nets than pay a settlement or endure the embarassment of headlines and/or litigation.

Bureaucrats/administrators have no incentive to take these kinds of risks.

During my senior year, I had tickets in the front row of Section B. I'm a pretty tall guy as well (6'6", so I occasionally had to fear the errant stick poking over the glass when there was a scrum on the boards. Similarly, I'd protect people several rows back from flying pucks. Fortunately the only puck I touched hit the ground first during the year there and was subsequently picked up.

[Q]Facetimer Wrote:It's not any of the hockey players that are acting negligently. It's guys like rink manager Phil Graham and the Cornell administration that know of the risks at Lynah and refuse to change anything. Graham, et al. have the duty of care to prevent anyone from getting injured at a game. By failing to, at minimum, use 8 foot glass that is the standard at hockey rinks, they breach their duty of care.[/q]

It may be your opinion that they have this duty of care and have breached it, but it's just your opinion. I'm not aware of any statute or judicial opinion holding that rink managers have such a duty of care to their fans notwithstanding a release like the one Cornell has on its tickets and notwithstanding the type of glass and netting already in place. Or if, for instance, they have given fans an indication that they will be completely safe while attending a game.

At what rinks is eight feet standard? Have pucks ever cleared the glass and hit fans in those rinks? If so, why isn't that still negligence? Have people ever gotten hit by a basketball leaving the court? If so, why isn't it negligence not to have glass there?

Beeeej

The only puck that's ever come close enough to me to hit me during a game, I caught on the fly. But then it wasn't going very fast.

Beeeej

It would seem that baseball has a much bigger exposure with many more balls going into the crowd going much faster as well as bats.. What happens when a pro golfer finally duffs one off the tee and beans someone standing just down from the tee box.. people need some accountability. you want to sit close to action you might see a wayword shot its you choice once you see your seat..

The concept that Beej was referring to is "assumption of the risk." In certain circumstances, where the risks are known and people nevertheless undertake the risky activity, the defense of assumption of the risk is commonly raised in a suit.

If you go to a hockey game, a baseball game, a golf tournament, a baskteball game, pro wrestling, any number of activities, there is a risk of a puck, a baseball, a player diving into the stands to make a play, an errant drive or a flying three hundred pound fake wrestler hitting you or landing on you. But you go. It's not a black and white issue. Depending on the circumstances it may well be reasonable to assume that you understood the risk and were willing to take it, rather than that you should be paid for being unlucky enough to have the seat where the unusual, but not uncommon event occurred. With sporting events, historically, the general rule has been that the spectator assumes the risk of the normal kinds of things that might happen in a game.

That said, more and more community rinks are installing netting along the sides of the rinks. It is a bother to look through it at the game, but, like many things, you tend to get used to it and looking through it.

As for paying settlements when unfortunate accidents do occur, that's generally another kind of risk assessment being done - the risk that a jury might decide to award some lottery sized verdict to a plaintiff. So, defendants settle, whether there is merit to the claim, or not.

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
Have people ever gotten hit by a basketball leaving the court?[/q]

Or perhaps hit by a basketball player leaving the court?

Read the story in the Wall Street Journal this past week (11/30/04 P1) about how small the payouts really are. Often both sides agree to settle for no less than $1 million and no more than $5-6 million regardless of the outcome. That guarantees the plaintiff gets some money (as does, ahem, the lawyer) but the defendant doesn't really get soaked. Often the cap both sides agree to is by incredible coincidence the total insurance available from, say, the two doctors plus the hospital. If the jury comes back with nothing, the plaintiff gets $1M; if the jury awards $50M, the plaintiff gets the $6M privately agreed cap, and if the jury comes back with $3.2M, the plaintiff gets $3.2M.

The upshot (this from the pro-business WSJ): Despite all our griping about out of control jury awards, many cases never get to a jury, and many of the jury verdicts are are pretty small, to the extent that $5M is small, which I think it is in the non-ivory tower world if only 5% of lawsuits actually see a jury. And by extending the argument, it means all the companies griping about out of control jury verdicts mean verdicts that don't result in big awards. In some cases huge verdicts would bankrupt doctors, so if the doctor has $2M liability insurance and his share of the award is $20M, maybe the plaintiff collects at most the $2M plus $1M if he's lucky of the doctor's personal wealth assuming the doctor hasn't sheltered it. Even in joint and several liability areas (if the poor doctor can't pay his share, the rich hospital gets stuck with the poor guy's judgment to pay), there's a limit to how much you can wring out of a hospital or medical practice.

You'll need a WSJ online subscription to read this in full:

>>> Earlier this year, a New York state jury awarded Elizabeth and John Reden $112 million in a medical-malpractice case filed on behalf of their brain-damaged daughter. But the Redens didn't get $112 million. They got $6 million. In the debate over medical-malpractice lawsuits, multimillion-dollar verdicts have become an important rallying cry for advocates of legislation to curtail jury awards. From emergency rooms to state houses to the White House, the advocates point to the heavy cost of large malpractice awards. Behind the big dollar numbers, the reality is more complex. Many plaintiffs settle for less than a jury's verdict, to eliminate delays and the uncertainty of appeal. Sometimes, even before a jury rules, a plaintiff has signed an agreement that limits how much money actually changes hands.The Redens, for example, hedged the outcome of their case through a common device known as a "high low" agreement. No matter what the jury ruled, the two sides agreed to settle for between $2 million and $6 million. Such agreements protect plaintiffs from a lengthy appeals process and typically set the top end of any potential award close to the limit on the physician's insurance policy.
...
One of the most common ways this happens is through high-low agreements like the one used by the Redens. Under such bargains, plaintiffs are guaranteed a minimum amount of money (the "low" no matter what the jury decides. But if the jury comes back with a large award, the amount of money the plaintiff receives is capped by the high end of the high-low.

[Q]peterg Wrote:

That said, more and more community rinks are installing netting along the sides of the rinks. It is a bother to look through it at the game, but, like many things, you tend to get used to it and looking through it.
[/q]

I sat in Section G behind the net the first couple years i had tickets. At first it was a pain, but after a while the only time i noticed it was trying to throw fish/newspaper on the ice. At this point, i actually like looking past a net than the glass, no reflections, distortions or anything. Its like looking past dirt or rain on your windshields, if you don't focus on it, you don't see it. Just my opinion.

My last Cornell Hockey game for a long while tonight , unless my orders get changed (hopefully). The closest a puck has come to me has been the next section over, or if i was by the aisle, on the complet other side. But then again, i was in G for two years.

[Q]upperdeck Wrote:

..people need some accountability. you want to sit close to action you might see a wayword shot its you choice once you see your seat.. [/q]

I agree. However, while Cornell may not be "required" to install netting, it could be viewed as the right thing, the "socially responsible" thing to do to protect the occupants, especially the elderly and the young. It justs takes one trustee writing to Lehman. Does anyone know if the end-board netting is a requirement? If not, it opens an interesting can of worms.

I don't like watching through netting, and I pray nobody gets seriously hurt. But I wouldn't want to be President Lehman and have a death occur on my watch, especially when it could have been prevented with nets. In my opinion, it's just a matter of time.

Clear netting that meets code would be the perfect solution. Of course, it must be retractable so that newspapers and fish can find their way onto the ice!

On a somewhat tangential note, spending this season watching UConn's home games, I've gained a new appreciation for seam-less glass, which I must say I'd taken for granted during my four years in Lynah. The seams are at least 3 inches wide or so, and opaque. Not only that, but they apparently stick out into the playing area (volume?) enough that the puck can take some really weird bounces. Last night, a player in his defensive end tried to clear the puck, shooting it at about a 45 degree angle to the glass, and the puck nearly came back at him. Crazy stuff.

[Q]Townie Wrote:
Does anyone know if the end-board netting is a requirement?[/q]
Until a couple seasons ago, the end of the rink where RPI stuck the visitors had no net. I think the glass is pretty high and the ice is recessed below the floor a good bit so pucks tended to clear the heads of the people in the seats when they left the ice. The stuff on the wall behind them rarely faired well though. It was nice to have an unobstructed view, but you did kind of fear for your life.

Speaking of risk management, one of the penalty box sitters told me he has been forbidden from throwing candy into the crowd by "risk management." That must be why there are no skating bears this year. Fear that they might fall on the ice and hurt themselves.

Nah, they just can't find anyone who wants to do it

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

Nah, they just can't find anyone who wants to do it[/q]

Quick. Get athletics to lean on the University to offer Pat a tenure track job in Snee....

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
Nah, they just can't find anyone who wants to do it[/q]
I'd offer to do it again if the Pep Band promised not to chant "The Bear drives a cab!" at me this time.

Beeeej

[Q]Rick '71 Wrote:

Speaking of risk management, one of the penalty box sitters told me he has been forbidden from throwing candy into the crowd by "risk management." That must be why there are no skating bears this year. Fear that they might fall on the ice and hurt themselves. [/q]Yup, that's true. I asked for clarification as to why I couldn't thow candy. First it was because it could be thrown on the ice, then they came up with the risk management problem. However there is still hope, for they didn't say that risk management said no, but that they had to study the question.

Wonder if they will have an answer by January?


They did say that I could "hand out the candy", just not throw it. So I donated my bags of Snickers to the band.

[Q]Rick '71 Wrote:

Speaking of risk management, one of the penalty box sitters told me he has been forbidden from throwing candy into the crowd by "risk management." That must be why there are no skating bears this year. Fear that they might fall on the ice and hurt themselves. [/q]

I guess risk management was also the brains behind having the penalty box "sitters" throw me condoms. They want to keep my offspring to a minimum.

Rick '71 must have warned his friends in the Cornell administration of my potential dangers. Apparently there is already a high population of facetimers with natural cribbage ability.

[Q]Facetimer Wrote:
They want to keep my offspring to a minimum.[/q]
I think that's something we all want.

[Q]Facetimer Wrote:

Apparently there is already a high population of facetimers with natural cribbage ability.[/q]


That's strange. I haven't met any.

The band thanks you for your contribution! The extra sugar really helps when we get to Gary Glitter.

Santa got away with a little bit of throwing

[Q]Ack Wrote:

Santa got away with a little bit of throwing[/q]

So what you're saying is that Santa is a tosser?