Lynah Rink Refurbishment

[Will]

The back of the ticket says that the University, the team, et al aren't responsible for injuries and whatnot.  But will that 'contract' (I guess that's what it is) hold up in court in a wrongful death suit?  I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know, but I know we have a few lawyers and lawyers-to-be here who might be able to answer that.

[Pete Godenschwager]

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....

[Facetimer]

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

 [Q2]atb9 Wrote:

 read the back of your ticket[/Q]
Like that would stop a lawyer from filing.

 [/q]

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).

NHL rinks have 8 feet of glass along the boards (slightly higher behind the net).  Lynah has 4 feet (I think -- I never brought a measuring tape) and we can all agree that the players at Lynah on both sides of the ice aren't all professional caliber and able to handle the puck as well.  Further the higher boards help prevent hard shot line drives from striking a fan.  Also, I thought I heard someone died at Lynah getting hit by a puck  back in the day.  Graham's failure to address the repeated concerns of the Lynah faithful to protect them during games is tantamount to gross negligence.

Perhaps it will take another casualty for Cornell to protect its loyal fans.

[David Harding]

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.

[billhoward]

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.

[Pete Godenschwager]

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

http://espn.go.com/nhl/news/2002/0320/1355047.html

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.

[calgARI '07]

[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.

[Beeeej]

[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.

[Facetimer]

[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: ::bang::

[Townie]

[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.

[Chris 02]

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.

[Beeeej]

[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

[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

[upperdeck]

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..

[peterg]

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.