Smollett v. Skayting Dev. Corp.
793 F.2d 547 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk remains a complete bar to recovery when a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily confronts an open and obvious risk inherent in an activity, thereby consenting to relieve the defendant of any duty of care.
Facts:
- Helene Smollett, an experienced skater, attended a fundraiser at a skating rink owned by Skayting Development Corporation.
- Smollett observed that the rink lacked guardrails and discussed this with the owner, who stated it was a modern safety design.
- The skating surface was made of polyurethane, was elevated three to five inches above the surrounding floor, which was carpeted.
- Signs stating "skate at your own risk" were posted in the rink.
- Smollett skated for approximately ninety minutes without incident.
- While taking a final lap, Smollett swerved to avoid a fallen child and another skater, moving from the skating surface onto the carpet.
- Upon entering the carpeted area, she fell and sustained a broken left wrist.
Procedural Posture:
- Helene Smollett and her husband filed a lawsuit against Skayting Development Corporation in the district court.
- Skayting asserted the affirmative defense that Smollett had assumed the risk of her injury.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Smollett, finding her 50% at fault.
- The jury's initial award of $50,000 was reduced to $25,000 to reflect Smollett's comparative fault.
- Skayting (defendant) filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The district court denied Skayting's motion.
- Skayting (appellant) 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 an experienced skater who is aware of individual, visible rink conditions such as the lack of guardrails, an elevated skating surface, and an adjacent carpeted area, assume the risk of injury as a matter of law, thereby barring recovery against the rink owner?
Opinions:
Majority - James Hunter, III
Yes. An experienced skater who is aware of such conditions assumes the risk of injury as a matter of law. The evidence shows that Smollett fully understood the risk of harm to herself and voluntarily chose to enter the area of risk. Smollett was aware that there were no guardrails, that the skating area was elevated, and that the surrounding area was carpeted; these conditions were clearly visible, as was the presence of young and inexperienced skaters. Although the Virgin Islands has a comparative negligence statute, primary assumption of risk, which operates as a form of waiver or consent, remains a complete defense. By being aware of these individual risks and choosing to skate, Smollett implicitly assumed the risk of injury, relieving the defendant of its duty to protect her from those inherent dangers.
Dissenting - Mansmann
No. A jury could reasonably find that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury. The defendant bears the burden of proving that the plaintiff knew of the risk, appreciated its character, and voluntarily accepted it. While the evidence showed Smollett knew of the separate hazards, there was no evidence that she knew of and appreciated the risk created by the combination of these hazards. Furthermore, the owner's assurance that the no-guardrail design was for safety reasons could counter a finding of voluntary consent. Given that reasonable people could differ as to whether Smollett truly understood and accepted the cumulative risk, the jury's verdict should not be disturbed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the viability of the primary assumption of risk doctrine as a complete defense in a comparative negligence jurisdiction. It establishes that a court may find a plaintiff assumed the risk as a matter of law if the component risks of an activity are open and obvious, even if the plaintiff did not subjectively appreciate the danger of their combination. This strengthens the position of defendants in recreational injury cases by allowing them to defeat claims before a jury if the plaintiff was injured by a known, inherent risk of the activity. The ruling reinforces the distinction between primary assumption of risk (a consent-based complete bar) and secondary assumption of risk (a form of contributory fault that is merged into a comparative negligence analysis).
Unlock the full brief for Smollett v. Skayting Dev. Corp.