Question

Sarah and Nicole decide to go a Red Wings Hockey game. While sitting in their seats a player hit a puck hard sending it above the protective barrier and it went flying into the stands. The puck hit Nicole in the head and killed her instantly. She was 19 years old. Her parents sued the Redwings organization. The Red Wings lawyer argued assumption of the risk and says they are not liable: You are the attorney for Nicole’s parents.

State a legal argument to show that the assumption of risk defense does NOT apply in this case.

(Please use IRAC)

Define and apply assumption of risk to the case.

Answer 1

Issue - Does assumption of risk apply to to the spectators in a hockey match where likelihood to be hit by a ball is very remote.

Rule- The assumption of risk is a legal theory which states that the spectators are very much aware of the risk of being hit by a shot while watching he game in the stands, and therefore are needed to take reasonable precaution whild watching a match and the game organisers are not liable because such risk was a pre assumption.

Application- Unlike a basketbal game where the ball is routinely hit in such a way so as to land among the spectators, and the assumed risk is very high, a hockey match is a different game where th ball is leokely to travel along the ground and the shots are never expected to reach the spectators. The puck which landed among the spectators and hit the plaintiff, killing her, was a negligent shot that was not in line with the rules / practices of the game, for which the player and organisers must be held liable.

Conclusion - The incident is not an assumed risk, given the nature of the game. Had the victim known the risk, she would have taken reasonable care while watching the game, which is not the case here. In this way, the player and organiser of the game is liable for negligence.