McKichan v. St. Louis Hockey Club, L.P.
1998 WL 113185, 967 S.W.2d 209, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 489 (1998)
Rule of Law:
In professional contact sports, a participant cannot recover for injuries resulting from conduct that, while violating the rules of the game, is an inherent and reasonably anticipated risk of the sport itself.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a professional hockey goaltender for the Milwaukee Admirals, was playing in a regulation game against the Peoria Rivermen.
- During the third period, a puck was shot over the plaintiff's goal and went out of play.
- A linesman blew his whistle, signaling a stop to the play.
- As the plaintiff skated away from the goal, an opposing player from the Rivermen (defendant player) skated towards him.
- After a second whistle had blown, the defendant player continued skating and forcefully hit the plaintiff with his body and stick.
- The collision knocked the plaintiff into the boards, rendering him unconscious.
- The defendant player received a "match penalty" from the referee and was suspended by the league for his actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, a hockey player, sued an opposing player and the opposing player's team owner in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- The opposing player filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff.
- Before trial, the plaintiff and the opposing player dismissed their claims against each other with prejudice.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial against the team owner on a theory of vicarious liability.
- The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded him $175,000 in damages.
- The defendant team owner appealed the judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a professional hockey player's conduct, which violates game rules and occurs after play has stopped, give rise to an actionable personal injury claim when that conduct is a risk inherent in the professional sport?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimm, Presiding Judge
No. The conduct does not give rise to an actionable claim because professional athletes assume the risk of such conduct as part of the game. Unlike amateur sports where liability is predicated on reckless or intentional misconduct, professional hockey is an inherently violent sport where players are compensated to participate. The court reasoned that rough play, including severe body checks that violate the rules and occur after a whistle, is a commonplace and reasonably anticipated part of professional hockey. Therefore, the plaintiff, as a professional, assumed the risk of this type of injury, and the defendant player's conduct is not legally actionable.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant distinction between the liability standards for amateur and professional athletes. By holding that professional players assume the risk of even intentional rule violations that are 'part of the game,' the court creates a higher bar for recovery in professional sports than the 'recklessness' standard applied in amateur sports. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for professional athletes to sue for on-field injuries, effectively immunizing a range of conduct that would otherwise be tortious. The ruling emphasizes the unique nature of professional sports, where violence is a component of the product and players are compensated for the risks they undertake.
