Sports Litigation Case Law Update March 2015 Part 1 of 2

Posted by

In this month’s sports litigation case law update, we travel to a soccer stadium in Texas, a softball field in Illinois, a hockey locker room in upstate New York, and then back to Texas to a youth baseball field.  We start, however, with the best sports-related quote in a judicial opinion this past month, which comes from the Court of Appeals of North Carolina which stated “we conclude that the purported conflict described in [defendant’s counsel’s] motion to disqualify looks less like a conflict of interest and more like the judicial equivalent of a European soccer player taking a dive and then writhing around on the ground feigning injury in an effort to trick the referee into disciplining his opponent. As such, [defendant’s counsel’s] motion to disqualify is denied” (MacMillan v. MacMillan, 2015 WL 873178 [NC Ct. of App., March 3, 2015]).

Watching Your Daughter Play Soccer is Not A Recreational Activity Under the Texas Recreational Use Statute 

University of Texas at Arlington v. Williams, 2015 WL 1285317 (Tex., March 20, 2015)

Plaintiff was injured when she fell through a gate five feet onto the turf field after watching her daughter’s high school soccer game.  Plaintiff commenced an action against the owner of the stadium, the University of Texas at Arlington, alleging negligence in its maintenance and failure to properly secure the gate.  The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court and held that Texas’ recreational use statute—which provides immunity from liability for ordinary negligence to landowners and occupants who open their property for certain enumerated public recreational purposes—does not extend to bar a negligence claim by a spectator at a competitive-sports event.  The Court’s opinion includes an analysis of other states’ recreational use statutes and case law thereunder, and notes that “recreational use statutes throughout the country are neither uniform nor uniformly applied.”

Playing Softball is Not a Recreational Purpose Under the Illinois Recreational Use Statute 

Gvillo v. DeCamp Junction, Inc., 2015 IL App (5th) 140113-U (IL App. Ct. 5th Dist., March 11, 2015)

The Illinois Appellate Court also declined an invitation to extend coverage under the immunity provision of the Illinois Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act in a case where the plaintiff was injured in a collision with a base-runner while playing first base in a softball tournament.  Plaintiff alleged that the defendants set up the softball field in an unreasonably dangerous manner, which led to the collision that caused his injuries.  The lower court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the Illinois Recreational Use Act provided immunity from liability to the organizers of the tournament for ordinary negligence.  On appeal, the appellate court reversed in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the version of the statute in effect at the time of the incident expressly defined “recreational or conservation purposes” to include only hunting, recreational shooting, and associated activities.  Therefore, the statute’s immunity provision does not apply to playing a game of softball.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.