Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc.
31 N.J. 44, 155 A.2d 90 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The affirmative defense of assumption of risk in its "secondary sense" (where a plaintiff knowingly encounters a risk created by a defendant's negligence) is not a distinct defense from contributory negligence. Rather, it is to be subsumed under the general analysis of contributory negligence, which questions whether a reasonably prudent person would have acted as the plaintiff did under the circumstances.
Facts:
- Casino Arena Attractions, Inc. operated an ice-skating rink.
- On the day of the incident, Casino Arena Attractions allegedly departed from its usual procedure for preparing the ice, causing the surface to become unusually hard and slippery.
- Irv Meistrich, a patron at the rink, began skating and noticed that his skates were slipping on the turns.
- Despite his awareness of the slippery condition, Meistrich continued to skate.
- While skating 'cross-hand' with another person, Meistrich fell and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Irv Meistrich sued Casino Arena Attractions, Inc. for negligence in a New Jersey trial court.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Casino Arena Attractions, Inc.
- Meistrich, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment, finding error in the jury instructions on assumption of risk, and ordered a new trial.
- Casino Arena Attractions, Inc., as petitioner, sought and was granted certification by the Supreme Court of New Jersey to review the Appellate Division's decision.
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 the affirmative defense of 'assumption of risk' in its secondary sense, where a plaintiff knowingly encounters a risk created by a defendant's negligence, constitute a legally distinct defense from contributory negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Weintraub
No, the affirmative defense of assumption of risk in its secondary sense does not constitute a legally distinct defense from contributory negligence. The court clarified that 'assumption of risk' has two distinct meanings. The 'primary' sense is merely an alternative way of stating that the defendant was not negligent because they owed no duty or did not breach the duty owed regarding inherent risks of an activity. The 'secondary' sense applies when a defendant has breached a duty, but argues the plaintiff is barred from recovery because they knowingly and voluntarily encountered the negligently created risk. The court concluded this secondary sense is indistinguishable from contributory negligence, as the core inquiry in both is whether a reasonably prudent person, in the exercise of due care, would have incurred the known risk and acted as the plaintiff did. To avoid jury confusion, the court directed that the terminology of 'assumption of risk' should not be used in jury instructions when it is asserted in its secondary sense; instead, the issue should be framed entirely within the doctrine of contributory negligence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies tort law in New Jersey by collapsing the confusing and often overlapping affirmative defenses of secondary assumption of risk and contributory negligence. By holding that the former is merely a 'phase' of the latter, the court eliminated a defendant's ability to present two separate but functionally identical defenses to a jury, which could lead to confusion and unfair outcomes. The ruling simplifies the jury's task by focusing it on a single, unified question: whether the plaintiff acted with the care of a reasonably prudent person under all circumstances, including the known risk. This case established a new framework for analyzing risk-related defenses, pushing New Jersey's jurisprudence toward a more streamlined and modern approach to comparative fault.
Unlock the full brief for Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc.