Smollett v. Skayting Development Corp.
793 F.2d 547 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff implicitly assumes the risk of injury, which completely bars recovery in a negligence action, when they have full knowledge and understanding of an obvious danger and voluntarily choose to encounter it, even in a jurisdiction that has adopted comparative negligence.
Facts:
- Helene Smollett, an experienced skater, attended a fundraiser at a roller rink owned by Skayting Development Corp.
- Upon arrival, Smollett and her husband noted the absence of guardrails and discussed it with the owner, who told them it was a modern safety design.
- The polyurethane skating area was elevated three to five inches above the surrounding carpeted floor.
- Several signs stating 'skate at your own risk' were posted throughout the rink.
- Smollett skated for approximately ninety minutes without incident among other patrons, including many children and inexperienced skaters.
- While taking her last lap, Smollett swerved from the skating surface onto the carpeted area to avoid a child who had fallen in her path.
- When her skates hit the carpet, she fell and broke her left wrist.
Procedural Posture:
- Helene Smollett and her husband filed a lawsuit against Skayting Development Corp. in the district court.
- After a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Smollett but found her 50% contributorily negligent, which reduced her damage award from $50,000 to $25,000.
- Skayting Development Corp. filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The district court denied the defendant's motion.
- Skayting Development Corp. appealed the district court's denial of its motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 skater, as a matter of law, assume the risk of injury when she voluntarily skates at a rink after observing that it has no guardrails, an elevated skating surface, and a surrounding carpeted area?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Hunter
Yes. A skater assumes the risk of injury by voluntarily choosing to skate when the physical conditions of the rink—such as the lack of guardrails, an elevated surface, and the differing friction of the surrounding carpet—are obvious and fully understood. The doctrine of primary assumption of risk, where a plaintiff consents to relieve a defendant of a duty, remains a complete bar to recovery even under a comparative negligence system. Smollett was an experienced skater who admitted awareness of the rink's visible conditions. The court reasoned she must have understood the risk of falling when moving from the smooth skating surface to the high-friction carpet, having walked on it in her skates to enter the rink. By voluntarily choosing to skate in the face of these known risks, she implicitly assumed the risk of her injury.
Dissenting - Judge Mansmann
No. The question of whether the skater assumed the risk was a matter for the jury to decide, and its verdict should not have been overturned. The defendant rink had the burden of proving that Smollett not only knew of the separate hazards but also appreciated the specific danger created by their combination. There was no direct evidence that she understood this combined risk. Furthermore, the owner's reassurance that the no-guardrail design was a safety feature could have reasonably negated the idea that Smollett consented to the risk. Since reasonable people could differ on whether Smollett truly understood and voluntarily accepted the risk, the jury's verdict should stand.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between primary and secondary assumption of risk within a comparative negligence framework. It affirms that primary assumption of risk, which functions as a plaintiff's consent to relieve the defendant of a duty concerning known risks, survives as a complete bar to recovery. The decision empowers courts to find assumption of risk as a matter of law when the dangers are obvious and inherent to the activity, potentially taking the question away from a jury. This precedent strengthens the assumption of risk defense for operators of recreational facilities where participants are expected to encounter foreseeable and visible dangers.
Unlock the full brief for Smollett v. Skayting Development Corp.