NJ Supreme Court to address duty to protect hockey spectator

verylowpriority

N.J. Top Court to Decide Scope of Protection for Sports Spectators
Mary Pat Gallagher
New Jersey Law Journal
08-24-2007

With a new hockey arena opening in Newark, N.J., this fall, it seems particularly apropos that the New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by an injured hockey spectator.

At issue is the duty to protect fans at sporting events, especially in higher-risk areas of the venue.

The case presents an opportunity for the court to clarify the scope of a 2005 decision that expanded the potential liability for spectator injuries.

In the case at hand, Denise Sciarrotta claims injury from being hit in the forehead with a puck at Trenton, N.J.'s Sovereign Bank Arena on Jan. 4, 2003.

She sued the arena, the Trenton Titans -- a minor-league team now known as the Trenton Devils -- and the East Coast Hockey League. But Mercer County Superior Court Judge Paul Innes threw out the case on summary judgment.

An appeals court reversed in April, but on July 7 the state Supreme Court granted a petition for certification in Sciarrotta v. Sovereign Bank Arena, A-28-07.

The leading case is Maisonave v. The Newark Bears Professional Baseball Club, 185 N.J. 70 (2005). Louis Maisonave was hit in the eye by a foul ball as he stood in line at a beverage cart in the Newark Bears' Riverfront Stadium mezzanine, an open area exposed on one side to the baseball field. The Maisonave court held there should have been extra protection in the most dangerous areas of the stadium and remanded for a factual determination of whether the mezzanine was such an area.

Sciarrotta was struck by a puck during the pregame warm-up, allegedly suffering severe cuts and a closed head injury. She was seated six rows from the ice, above a Plexiglas sheet shielding fans in lower rows. Innes found the Maisonave standard satisfied because there was protective netting in the corners and end zones.

In reversing, the appeals court focused on the different levels of risk during the game, with a single puck in play, and the warm-up, when there can be dozens of pucks in the air at once and fans are less able to protect themselves by following the action.

The "heightened vulnerability" identified by Maisonave as a basis for protecting fans in some areas differently from those elsewhere might likewise impose added duties in connection with a hockey warm-up, found appellate division Judges Howard Kestin, Marie Lihotz and Ronald Graves.

The arena sought certification based on Mauro v. The Trenton Thunder Baseball Club, A-3413-05, an unpublished March 16, 2007, appellate division decision released four days before oral argument in Sciarrotta. It involved an 8-year-old girl hit in the face by a baseball between innings at the Mercer County Waterfront Park in Trenton.

Though the girl's injury did not occur during regular play, Judges Francine Axelrad, Rudy Coleman and William Gilroy found the ballpark satisfied its limited duty of care under Maisonave.

The Sciarrotta opinion does not mention Mauro, but Sciarrotta's counsel, Laura Persichetti Lovett, says it came up at oral argument.

The Sovereign Arena defendants argued in their petition that Sciarrotta erred in distinguishing between warm-ups and regular play and that the conflict with Mauro mandated court review.

The use of netting behind goals at hockey arenas became common after the 2002 death of Brittanie Cecil, a 13-year-old Ohio girl hit on the head by a puck, notes Lovett, of Princeton, N.J.'s Stark & Stark. "The arena does nothing to warn spectators. They encourage people to watch warm-ups," she adds.

The defendants' lawyer, Scott Samansky of Fishman & Callahan in East Hanover, N.J., says spectators have to be alert because "there is always a possibility that something can come out into the stands."

He says that, contrary to what the appeals court assumed, errant pucks are more likely during the game, when a cross-ice pass is deflected.

Copyright 2007 ALM. All Rights Reserved.
_________________
NHrow7 (1996-2006)

staltus · Gross Misconduct Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 782

Wow thats a real hockey fan for you, not! Pretty soon the game is going to have to be played in a plexiglass case with a small door leading into the playing area that is locked and barred as soon as the players have entered. Any seam in the glass greater than 1/16" will have to be caulked shut to prevent that deadly chips flying off the puck or broken stick blades from hitting a spectator.

monkeyboy · Unsportsmanlike Conduct Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 221

Just when did this country become a nation of pussies?
_________________
If you can't beat them, BEAT THEM.

staltus · Gross Misconduct Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 782

Hey VLP if this nimwit wins can I sue her for destroying my view of hockey games?

staltus · Gross Misconduct Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 782

monkeyboy · Unsportsmanlike Conduct Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 221

I would have split the blame between Dr Spock & the Warren Berger court, but I guess any dead president will do (except Teddy Roosevelt. too bad he left the office to Taft. He should have run for the 3rd consecutive term instead of waiting 4 years).
_________________
If you can't beat them, BEAT THEM.

verylowpriority · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject:

staltus · Gross Misconduct Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 782

Doesn't England have some law that if the Judge determines a lawsuit to be frivolous that the plaintiff had to pay the defendant the amount he was asking plus all legal costs and the barrister gets a huge fine?

verylowpriority · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject:

I don't know about any fines, but regardless whether a lawsuit in the English courts is "frivolous," I think that the general rule is that the loser gets stuck with the winner's attorneys' fees.

Of course the devil is in the details. If I sue you for $1,000 and the jury awards me $50, which party is the "prevailing party?"
_________________
NHrow7 (1996-2006)

monkeyboy · Unsportsmanlike Conduct Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 221

I like the loser-pays rules!
The lawyers in the crowd are gonna hate me for saying this, but I would like to see lawyer fees capped, say no more than $15k for civil suits & $25k for criminal suits, regardless of the eventual jury award.
Of course as legislators are mostly lawyers that's likely to happen as much as any elected official voting themselves a pay CUT.
_________________
If you can't beat them, BEAT THEM.

verylowpriority · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject:

verylowpriority · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:44 am Post subject:

....And I forgot three grand a month for my legal assistant and another grand a month for her and my health insurance....

....bar dues....occupational tax....

Still wanna cap my fees? I gotta make one helluvalotta money before I make any money at all.
_________________
NHrow7 (1996-2006)

monkeyboy · Unsportsmanlike Conduct Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 221

Yep, Like I said, the lawyers in the crowd are gonna hate me for saying it...
Look, I've got nothing against a person making a living, or even making a good living. Some folks build houses, some produce food, some sell cars, some play sports. You can debate the relative usefulness of any profession.
So explain to me what lawyers produce besides litigation. If you went into law as a career because you have a deep & abiding love of the law or because you're driven to help for fellow citizens, I give you a full, unreserved apology. I deeply suspect that a vast majority of lawyers choose the profession, not for love or desire to help people, but for MONEY. Im my own uninformed way of thinking, remove the profit motive, produce less lawyers in it for the money. Fewer lawyers leads to less litigation & certainly far fewer multimillion dollar law suits instigated because some damn fool wants to sue someone because their coffee was too hot & they spilled it on themselves.
I know there is a need to have qualified legal counsel, especailly when dealing with larger corperate entities or with over-eager DA's who are willing to suppress evidence to get a conviction (so as to advance their on careers at the expense of justice). It just seem to me the amount of litigation this country produces is excessive, most of it seem to be just stupid (like the case that started this post) and centered on how much money someone can get a jury to give them. I'd be completely open to suggestions from someone who is a lawyer on how we as a society can start putting an end to this nonsense. To me it seems the nonsense is driven by greed (the root of all evil as quoted in one book I read).
So tell me VLP, what's the most efficient, effective way to reduce greed driven motives in the legal system?
_________________
If you can't beat them, BEAT THEM.

verylowpriority · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:44 am Post subject:

Answer: The jury system.
_________________
NHrow7 (1996-2006)

monkeyboy · Unsportsmanlike Conduct Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 221

verylowpriority · Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:15 am Post subject:

It's the juries who give out the cash, amigo. No lawyer is going to take on any kind of litigation matter that he doesn't think a jury will give him money on. At least not on a contingent fee basis.

In most cases he won't even do it for a client who is willing to pay hourly fees up front. You tell the client "this case isn't worth pursuing," but the client insists he wants to pursue it, and ponies up five or ten or twenty grand for a retainer, and the lawyer takes the case to trial and loses, as predicted....and you know what happens next, don't you? A malpractice suit against the lawyer, and/or a grievance to the State Bar of Texas. It ain't worth it.

Mind you, we're focused here only on the litigation process. A majority of all the legal work performed by all the lawyers in our country takes place outside the litigation process. Lawyers counsel their clients how to make money and how to avoid problems and how to stay out of trouble. And one man's "greed" is another man's "capitalism."

Litigation is probably the LEAST lucrative kind of law practice. You want to make real money? Do transactional work on mergers and acquisitions, public offerings and private placements of equity and debt securities, corporate reorganizations, that kind of stuff. That's where lawyers make obscene money. And they couldn't make obscene money if they were not helping their clients to make obscene money.
_________________
NHrow7 (1996-2006)

monkeyboy · Unsportsmanlike Conduct Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 221

Thanx for the enlightenment!
_________________
If you can't beat them, BEAT THEM.

staltus · Gross Misconduct Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 782

Man this is going to be the most educational hockey season ever. 8)

monkeyboy · Unsportsmanlike Conduct Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 221

staltus · Gross Misconduct Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 782

You don't have a season ticket next to VLP 8)