Telega v. Security Bureau, Inc.
1998 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2990, 719 A.2d 372 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'no-duty' rule for amusement facilities applies only to risks that are common, frequent, and expected as an inherent part of the sport itself. This rule does not absolve an operator of its duty to protect patrons from foreseeably dangerous conditions not inherent in the amusement activity, such as violent crowd behavior.
Facts:
- Mitchell and Karen Telega were season ticket holders for the Pittsburgh Steelers, with seats in the end-zone section of Three Rivers Stadium.
- On December 6, 1992, a football kicked during a field goal attempt flew over the protective net and into the stands.
- Mitchell Telega stood in front of his seat and cleanly caught the football.
- Immediately after he caught the ball, other aggressive fans thrust him from his seat, trampled him, and forcibly took the football.
- Mr. Telega suffered numerous injuries, including facial lacerations, a sprained shoulder, and a broken nose requiring surgery.
- Prior to this incident, the Telegas and other patrons had lodged complaints with stadium security personnel, managed by Security Bureau, Inc., about the lack of crowd control and danger posed when footballs landed in their section.
Procedural Posture:
- Mitchell and Karen Telega filed a negligence complaint against Security Bureau, Inc. and others in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court).
- Security Bureau, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to Mr. Telega.
- The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Security Bureau, Inc. on October 11, 1996.
- The Telegas' initial appeal was quashed as premature because the claims against other defendants were still pending.
- The Telegas settled with the remaining defendants, who were removed from the case on July 22, 1997.
- The Telegas, as appellants, then filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (an intermediate appellate court) against Security Bureau, Inc., the appellee.
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 'no-duty' rule, which protects amusement facility operators from liability for injuries caused by risks inherent to an activity, extend to a spectator's injuries caused not by the game itself but by other patrons violently scrambling for a souvenir football?
Opinions:
Majority - Montemuro, J.
No. The 'no-duty' rule does not extend to injuries caused by other patrons. The court reasoned that the central inquiry is whether the injury resulted from a risk inherent in the amusement activity. Being attacked by other fans is not an inherent risk of watching football, unlike being struck by an errant ball or puck. The court, citing Jones v. Three Rivers Management Corp., held that the no-duty rule applies only to risks that are 'common, frequent and expected' as part of the game itself. The trial court erred by focusing on Mr. Telega's prior knowledge of the dangerous fan behavior, which improperly shifts the focus from the nature of the risk to the affirmative defense of assumption of risk. An amusement facility operator remains liable for failing to use reasonable care to protect patrons from foreseeable dangers not inherent in the activity, such as managing crowd control.
Dissenting - Joyce, J.
Yes. The 'no-duty' rule should apply under these circumstances. The dissent argued that because the Telegas had witnessed fan upheaval over souvenir footballs on many prior occasions and had complained about it, the risk was 'quite common and customary' to their specific experience at the stadium. Based on this past experience, the risk of injury from displaced fans was reasonably foreseeable to the Telegas. Therefore, the dissent concluded that the Telegas assumed this known risk and that the trial court's grant of summary judgment should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the 'no-duty' rule for amusement venues in Pennsylvania. It establishes a critical distinction between risks inherent to the sport itself (e.g., a flying puck) and risks created by the foreseeable conduct of third parties (e.g., unruly fans). By refusing to extend the no-duty rule to cover fan violence, the court reinforces the venue operator's general tort duty to manage and control crowds to prevent foreseeable harm. This precedent limits the ability of sports venues to use the no-duty rule as a shield against liability for failing to provide adequate security for predictable crowd behavior.
