No Liability For Hockey Injuries

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to multiple defendants in a case involving an injury during a hockey game

In a game where the players wear sharpened steel blades on their feet and are garbed in protective gear from head to toe, the playing field is a glossy ice rink, checking not only is allowed but a fundamental aspect of the way the game is played, and the object of the game is to put a puck into a goal (or to prevent the same), the plaintiff, seventeen year old Daniel J. Borella, was cut on the wrist by one of the blades worn by the defendant, Julion Scott Lever, in what Borella acknowledges was a “freak accident” occurring moments after Lever checked Borella hard from behind into the boards and took the puck away. Borella appeals from the decision of the Superior Court judge granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants…

We hold that where, as here, the record is devoid of evidence from which a jury rationally could conclude that the player’s conduct is extreme misconduct outside the range of the ordinary activity inherent in the sport, there is no legal liability under the recklessness standard. For that reason, we affirm summary judgment in favor of Lever. Because, in addition, no rational view of the evidence would permit finding a causal nexus between Borella’s injury and any breach by the other defendants — coaches, referees, rink manager, and owners — of their respective duties of care to Borella, we affirm.

The combatants

On July 14, 2013, Borella was injured during an ice hockey game between his  team, the New England Renegades (a Massachusetts-based team coached by the defendant Bernard Brun, a parent volunteer) and Lever’s team, Team Kanaly (a Pennsylvania-based team coached by the defendant Justin Grevious). Both teams were in the Midget Major division for high school players aged seventeen to nineteen years old — a division where checking was allowed.

The game was heated

Prior to the injury, both teams engaged in verbal jousting, which referee Mahoney described as “pretty typical for this age group.” The referees cautioned both coaches to instruct their players to stop the taunting, and both coaches did so. The referees were unbiased in their officiating; however, some Renegades team spectators believed that the referees did not control the game and failed to call some rule violations.

And the evidence suggested a hard hit

As a result of the check, Borella fell to the ice onto the puck. Lever continued to battle for the puck, and though the details are murky in part because Borella temporarily lost consciousness,  Borella’s wrist was sliced by one of the blades Lever wore on his feet in what Borella acknowledges was a “freak accident.” Mahoney called a minor penalty for “boarding,” sending Lever into the penalty box. Borella, who was bleeding from the laceration, was carried from the ice, and the game ended before the official game clock had run. The injury resulted in the permanent partial loss of the use of Borella’s dominant hand.

The majority granted summary judgment to the other player

No rational view of this record supports a finding that Lever’s conduct was reckless — that is, extreme misconduct outside the range of the ordinary activity inherent in ice hockey. The game of hockey at the level at issue in this case – – seventeen to nineteen year old high school Midget Major division players — involves, as the parties agree, “a lot of body contact, which requires a player to be aggressive and physical.” Checking (and even checking hard and deliberately) is not only allowed, but “is an inherent, fundamental part of the sport.”22 Karas, 227 Ill. 2d at 456. Both Lever and Borella had been playing ice hockey for years, and both were well acquainted with the fact that an inherent part of the sport involves physical contact, such as checking (whether within the rules or in violation thereof), and the potential for injury from the same.

That, while vying for the puck, Lever aggressively engaged in conduct that constituted a penalty (such as boarding, charging, or hitting from behind) does not alter the analysis.

Also to the refs, coaches, rink and others

RUBIN, J. (dissenting).

Thirty years ago, in Gauvin v. Clark, 404 Mass. 450, 454 (1989), the Supreme Judicial Court held that when a tort claim “aris[es] out of an athletic event,” there a college ice hockey game, liability will be imposed “in cases of reckless disregard of safety.” The court today improperly and without authority replaces that test with the one utilized by courts in States that have rejected the recklessness standard articulated by the Supreme Judicial Court and applicable here…

If the facts in this case don’t raise a jury question about recklessness, it is hard to imagine what will. Because the majority’s opinion is not consistent with the precedent by which we are bound, and because it may both place children who play sports needlessly in danger’s way, and lead some responsible parents to withdraw their children from youth sports, respectfully, I dissent.

(Mike Frisch)