Ice Means Skating AND Lawsuits

Wollman Rink; Photo: Tien Mao

While NYC's ice rinks are tempting, as well as a fun time, you do tend to hear stories about people breaking an arm or slipping. And since it involves people on thin blades of metal on ice, it's not that surprising. That's why, even though we know we're living in the most litigious city in the country, Gothamist was taken aback when we read skating-related lawsuits have topped $100 million. The city hasn't had to pay out money since many skating rinks are operated by skating rink concessionaires (the Trump Organization runs Wollman and Lasker rinks, for example), but some of the lawsuits do seem egregious. Like blaming the crowds at the ice rink. Gothamist must say, while some ice rinks could stand to be better run, suing the ice rink because you fall seems extreme. We wonder if ice rinks will make people sign waivers before skating.

Do you think ice rinks should be held responsible for accidents, to the extent of paying millions of dollars? What are your skating tips? And Gothamist on skating rinks in the city - our tip is to wear lots of layers, go slow, and go with someone who knows how to skate.

More photos of Wollman Rink on Tien's site and on Youngna's site.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on December 23, 2004 12:03 PM

Comments [rss]

Debbie

The problem with the McDonald's coffee example is that not only did McDonald's know for years that the coffee was too hot, so did the people who drank it! Maybe if this was the women's first visit to McDonald's then I could see her side, but it wasn't, therefore she should have known better than to put the cup between her legs. I bet she'd even done it before without any negative consequences so she figured she could do it forever, and be fine.

Lawyer Bob

Um...Mr. Apple...we're talking about skating rinks and doofusses who willingly skate on blades of steel over hard ice and then fall and then sue the city for damages to their idiot tuchassas...not about vicious corporations and large multinational conglomerates...

To overly generalize this issue and to argue to stop limitations on most frivolous lawsuits in the off chance that Exxon dumps a tanker on your front lawn is RIDICULOUS.

S.D.

Well, the problem is: what is a Friviolous Lawsuit?

There isn't a simple measure to that one and IMO penalizing the Plaintiff simply encourages the people NOT to address when thwy are wronged. Judges are Mortal (often too much so...) and make mistakes too. Should the plaintiff be penalized because a judges Bias?

As for "Tort Reform" Politicians tend to ONLY look at extremes. When a Polictician wants "Reform" or speaks of "Morals" Grab your wallet with both hands...

harDCore

1. assumption of risk

2. contributory/comparative negligence.

skating accidents mostly won't survive motions to dismiss on these theories.

toyochin

Then it's up to the judges to recognize what is and isn't frivolous though, isn't it? I wouldn't want the government setting the standards for frivolousness which would limit my ability to go after insurance companies and recklessly negligent corporations.

And penalizing the plaintiff for lost cases will simply encourage corporations to cook the books to inflate their legal costs. Think about it - insurance companies would be able to screw their customers twice by denying coverage and then making them pay for their lawyers.

Apple Torte

Yea but defending against these "frivoulous" cases are time consuming and expensive. They should penalize the plantiff for every frivolous case that is filed and lost.

James

Thanks for your comments, Victoria. You answered a lot of questions that were in my mind about these kinds of lawsuits.

victoria

The problem with those news stories about "tort cases gone out of control" is that they don't discuss, in any meaningful way, the limits imposed by existing laws on frivolous claims.

In other words, anyone can FILE a lawsuit because they slipped in an ice rink, but whether they WIN the suit is a different kettle of fish.

Why? It is widely accepted in all jurisdictions that any person who participates in an athletic activity accepts the obvious risks associated with that activity -- in this case, collision with other skaters or the ice.

Only if the ice rink contained some hidden danger, known to the proprietor but not obvious to the skaters, would the ice rink's owner be liable for injury.

What bothers me about the story you're reporting in your blog is that the news gets ahold of these shocking (out of context) tidbits, and then the legislature and voters come up with "tort reform" statutes that cap total damages, eliminate punitive and other non-monetary damages, and generally screw victims.

For example, that case against McDonalds for the hot coffee the woman spilled in her lap? It was reported all over the country as an example of tort lawyers gone crazy. In fact, the victim in that case had exruciatingly painful third degree burns all over her genitals. The evidence showed that McDonalds knew for years that its coffee was way too hot and was injuring patrons, and that the corporation just didn't care and couldn't be bothered to address it.

Believe me, most victims of catastrophic injury are already BADLY undercompensated for their death or injury.

Moreover, tort laws help keep all of us safe. If there weren't the risk of lawsuits, commercial landowners would have no incentive to eliminate nonobvious hazards from their premises. Common carriers would exercise less care in maintaining the carriers they use. Manufacturers wouldn't bother to test their products for safe design and manufacture.

Don't worry about "frivolous" lawsuits. The law has common sense built into it. Moreover, defendants have the right to a jury and juries are very tough on frivolous claimants.