Morris v. Cleveland Hockey Club

• Decision Date: 26 March 1952
• Docket Number: No. 32568,32568
• Citation: 105 N.E.2d 419,157 Ohio St. 225
• Parties: , 47 O.O. 147 MORRIS v. CLEVELAND HOCKEY CLUB, Inc.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 225

157 Ohio St. 225

105 N.E.2d 419, 47 O.O. 147

MORRIS v. CLEVELAND HOCKEY CLUB, Inc.

No. 32568.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 26, 1952.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a person purchases a reserved seat in an unscreened section of a hockey arena from the proprietor thereof, is escorted to such seat by an agent of the proprietor, knows nothing about the game of hockey, has never witnessed one or heard one described, and has never seen a flying puck, such person, in the absence of any warning, does not as a matter of law assume the risk of being hit by a puck flying from the arena during the game.

2. The dangers to spectators incident to attending a hockey game in an arena 200 feet by 85 feet in dimensions are not so general as to be matters of common knowledge or so obvious that a person of ordinary prudence would necessarily have knowledge of them.

On April 1, 1948, William Morris, appellee, hereinafter designated plaintiff, instituted an action in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County against The Cleveland Hockey Club, Inc., a corporation under the laws of Ohio, hereinafter designated defendant.

In

his petition plaintiff alleges that defendant operated and maintained a building in Cleveland known as 'The Arena,' which was equipped with a large ice rink surrounded by a rail behind which seats were provided for the accomodation of spectators; that defendant was engaged in sponsoring and promoting ice hockey games to which the public was invited upon payment of admission fees; that on February 18, 1948, plaintiff, as a holder of a reserved seat purchased from defendant, was seated as a spectator close to the rail of the ice rink at a point directly behind the seats provided for the Philadelphia hockey team which was then engaged in a hockey game with the Cleveland Barons, and during the game a hard rubber object known as a puck was by a player propelled from the ice at a high speed over the rail and struck plaintiff over the right eye, causing serious injuries; and that, at the time and place complained of, defendant maintained alongside the rink a low rail, the sides not being guarded by screens to protect the spectators from injuries from flying pucks, all of which constituted a highly dangerous and hazardous condition.

Plaintiff alleges the following specifications of negligence:

Defendant failed and neglected to provide a reasonably safe theater or arena for paying spectators attending the hockey contests sponsored by it; failed and neglected to provide and equip the sides of the arena, and particularly the southerly side thereof, with wire screening or other screening, mesh or guards to safeguard and protect paying spectators from objects hurled or propelled from the ice; failed and neglected to warn or apprise plaintiff by sign or otherwise of the hazards and dangers to which it was then and there subjecting him; and caused, allowed and permitted a hard rubber object or hockey puck to be propelled and hurled against plaintiff while he was seated unprotected in its arena.

Plaintiff's petition alleges further that this was the first hockey game ever attended by him and that he was unfamiliar with the sport.

Defendant's answer admits that plaintiff, as a spectator in its arena, was struck by a misdirected hockey puck during a hockey game, but denies negligence upon defendant's part.

Defendant alleges further that the game of ice hockey is a popular, fast-moving, vigorous and exciting athletic sport played by two six-man teams; that the members of the competing teams skate over the ice at a fast pace, striking with their hockey sticks at a rubber disk called a puck; and that the object of the players on each team is to drive the puck into a net or goal guarded by the players of the opposing team.

Defendant's answer alleges further that the mishap to plaintiff was an unavoidable incident of the sport; that for the accommodation and protection of spectators at hockey games at the arena, who may desire protection from such risks, there are provided a large number of seats in the grandstand of the arena in front of which are erected wire screens which afford complete protection from misdirected pucks, and, in addition, the remaining seats in the grandstand, with the exception of the rows immediately alongside of the immediately adjacent to the ice rink, are so located in relation to the playing surface that spectators who occupy such seats are free from any such risks; that on the night in question plaintiff occupied one of the seats in the grandstand close to the playing surface and in an unscreened section; and that plaintiff by occupying and remaining in such section voluntarily assumed the risks of such position as incidents of the game.

Plaintiff filed a reply denying all material allegations in the answer except such as were admitted in the allegations in plaintiff's petition.

The record discloses that the ice hockey rink, in accordance with the official rules of the American Hockey League, was approximately 200 feet long and 85 feet wide; that it was surrounded by a wooden wall or sideboard three and one-half to four feet high; that the playing surface was rectangular in shape, with rounded corners; and that the goals were ten feet from each end of the playing field and half way between the sides thereof.

A hockey game consists of three 20-minute periods of actual play with 10-minute intermissions between periods. The object of the game is to slide or propel a hard rubber disk known as a puck over or above the surface of the ice into the cage or goal past the opposing goalkeeper. The puck weighs six to seven ounces, is about three inches in diameter and about one inch thick. It is frozen for each game to prevent it from rolling and to increase its tendency to slide. During the game the players frequently carom shots off the sideboard and, as a part of the play, strike the puck so that it is sometimes raised several feet off the ice. By reason of the bodily contact between the players it is a matter of considerable uncertainty as to where a puck may go when hit with a hockey stick, and from six to nineteen pucks may be lofted into the stands during the course of a game.

The seating in the arena comprised 33 tiers of seats rising at a 33-degree angle from the surface of the playing arena, and gave unrestricted vision to all spectators.

The first row of seats was directly behind the sideboards and on the surface level; the second row was raised one foot above the surface level and was three feet behind the sideboards; and the third row, in which plaintiff sat at the time of his injury, was three and one-half feet above the surface of the ice and approximately five feet behind the sideboards.

At the ends of the rink in the arena were heavy wire screens which were over six feet in height and which rested upon the sideboards. These screens afforded protection for approximately one-third of the seats in the arena but there was no screen protection in front of the seat occupied by plaintiff and there were no warnings by signs or other wise with reference to the danger of flying pucks.

The American Hockey League, of which the Cleveland Hockey Club was a member, consisted of 10 clubs, six of which had taken measures to protect patrons seated on the side of the arena, as well as in the end zones, against flying pucks.

Defendant offered testimony to show that of the 26 cities having similar arenas only 10 provided protection in the form of plexiglass or wire barriers extending along portions of the sides of the arena.

During the 1947-1948 hockey season up to February 18, 1948, 13 persons reported to the first-aid station at the arena for injuries sustained from flying pucks, and it was stipulated that the figure 13 could be considered as the average for similar prior periods during which the arena had been in operation.

During the course of the game on the evening in question and prior to the time plaintiff was hit, there had been no flying pucks propelled into the stands where spectators were seated. Occasionally one of the methods of effecting a pass is to slide or propel the puck against the sideboard or wall so that it bounds back in the form a carom shot to an intended point where another player of the same team may receive it. For the most part the puck is not raised above the ice although occasionally, in passing, the puck is lifted off the surface of the ice in order to cause it to pass over the head of the hockey stick of an opposing player, which is about two and one-half inches in height.

Plaintiff was a bank clerk who had been given two reserved seats for the hockey game on the night in question by a neighbor who had purchased them and was unable to use them. Plaintiff had taken a guest with him, had never before seen a hockey game, knew nothing about the rules of one or its objectives, and had never heard a game broadcast.

Defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence and renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence was overruled.

The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, and the trial court overruled a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial and entered judgment upon the verdict.

That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 98 N.E.2d 49.

The cause is before us upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Payer, Bleiweiss, Crow & Mollison, Cleveland, for appellee.

Hauxhurst, Inglis, Sharp & Cull and M. R. Gallagher, all of Cleveland, for appellant.

STEWART, Judge.

The first question for our consideration is whether defendant was entitled to a judgment in the trial court as a matter of law or whether the question of defendant alleged negligence and the contributory negligence and assumption of risk upon the part of plaintiff constituted questions of fact to be determined by the jury.

Defendant contends that there was an absence of showing of causal connection...