12/05/1988 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 4 Hockey and Ice Skating Rinks Are Special Concerns by Brenda Piatz, LMCIT Hockey and ice skating season good condition. If a city does not are fast approaching and bring with exercise reasonable care, it could them some special loss control con- be found liable for injuries to Berns for cities. There are several skaters. Stucci v. City of St. Paul is things city employees can do to help an example. minimize hockey and skating in- ' juries. In Stucci v. City of St. Paul, a A. child was injured while ice skating < _ When putting up boards for at a city-operated rink. The weat- hockey rinks, inspect the boards her had been unusually warm and —� first to see that they are in good the city had informed the public shape and repair and replace any through the media that the rink was — -- that aren't. For hockey rinks left closed. Gina Stucci fell while standing year-round, check out the skating and a 2" piece of jagged boards . They could have glass slashed through her hand, deteriorated over the summer or causing extensive damage. The jury ticipants. Face masks were not been vandalized. Repair or replace found in favor of Gina and awarded provided. The jury found for the boards which are splintered or her $20,000 in damages, finding the plaintiff, but the Minnesota cracked. Check for dangerous gaps city to be 80% negligent. The ap- Supreme Court reversed the deci- between the boards and tighten peals court reversed the decision sion and sent it back to district them if possible. A current case stating that the city's decision to court for a new trial on the issues being defended by LMCIT involves close the rink was a discretionary of whether the city was negligent in a serious injury to a young boy act protected by statutory im- not supplying a face mask and as- which occurred when his hockey munity. The city exercised sumption of risk or contributory stick got stuck between two boards reasonable care in its inspection negligence. The Court stated that of the rink. The plaintiff claims the and maintenance and did not there is a difference between the city was negligent in allowing breach its duty to warn skaters of a relationship which exists between a dangerous gaps to exist. Also, be dangerous condition. It was not li- municipal corporation and a person sure to check out any bleachers and able for injuries suffered by a child making use of a park or playground steps or entries leading to the skating at a closed rink.The lack of provided without charge and that bleachers to prevent injuries to lighting, general weather condi- which exists between the owner of spectators. These things should be tions, absence of other skaters and a private enterprise conducted for checked periodically throughout the a closed recreation building profit and its patrons. The person season. provided reasonable notice to who pays for admission has more skaters that the rink was closed. reason to expect that supervision Other things a city should con- The court also noted that the City will be maintained and adequate sider are the placement of hockey of St. Paul provided regular main- equipment provided as partial con- rinks and warming houses. Acci- tenance and inspection when the sideration for the admission charge. dents can occur due to falls on ice rinks were open. The City had no A municipality making a skating allowed to accumulate in areas out- prior information that there was rink available to the general public side a skating rink or on paths glass in this ice. without charge has no duty to leading from a warming house to provide supervision of those par- the rink where people other than Although this case was favorable ticipating in the games being played skaters may walk. Accidents also for the city, it should not be as- on the ice and no duty to provide happen because of the placement of sumed that a city will always win in equipment for such games. If it as- hockey rinks, such as at the bottom cases dealing with ice injuries. sumes such a duty, however, (as it of a hill . Another case being Good maintenance and inspection did in this case) it must apply defended by LMCIT involves a of ice rinks is important. If rinks reasonable care to perform it ade- child sliding down a hill and injur- are to be closed, notice should be quately. The city had assumed the ing his back when flying onto the given to the public. duty of furnishing equipment to the hockey rink located directly at the boys playing hockey and a jury bottom of the hill. The plaintiff Another area to consider is su- could find that the failure of the claims the city was negligent in al- pervision of ice rinks and safety city to include a face mask con- lowing children to slide on this hill. equipment. In Diker v. City of St. stitutes negligence and proximately Cities should examine their recrea- Louis Park, a 10-year-old boy was caused the plaintiffs injury, tion areas to see if there are any hit in the eye by a hockey puck hazards caused by the location of while tending goal at a practice The point made by this case is ice rinks. hockey session at a public skating that if a city does provide supervi- rink maintained by the city.The city sion or equipment, it must exercise The ice surface also needs to be did not provide supervisory person- reasonable care and provide ade- inspected on hockey rinks and nel for the practice sessions but did quate supervision and equipment or skating rinks to ensure that it is in supply protective equipment to par- it can be found negligent.