Myers v. Skateland Enterprises CA2/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/23/24 Myers v. Skateland Enterprises CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
GERALDINE MYERS, B328404
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. 21STCV09851)
SKATELAND ENTERPRISES,
INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lynne M. Hobbs, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Theida Salazar and Theida Salazar for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
Amaro | Baldwin, Michael L. Amaro and Sanaz Cherazaie
for Defendant and Respondent.
___________________________________
Geraldine Myers was injured in a fall at a roller-skating
rink after another skater bumped her arm. She sued rink owner
Skateland Enterprises, Inc. On de novo review of Skateland’s
motion for summary judgment, we conclude that the assumption
of risk doctrine forecloses Myers’s claims.
Myers concedes that skating is inherently risky and did not
show that Skateland increased the risks of injury beyond those
inherent to skating. There are no triable issues of disputed fact.
We affirm the judgment for Skateland.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Myers’s Complaint
On December 29, 2019, Myers went to Skateland in
Northridge. She was struck from behind on the skating floor by
defendant Jason Lee.1 Myers lost her balance and fell,
sustaining arm and hand injuries that required treatment at a
hospital.
Myers sued Skateland for negligence and premises liability.
She alleged that it lacked trained personnel “to prevent the wild
skating of Defendant Lee.” The lack of safety measures and
monitoring presented “a risk of the massively unsafe skating”
that led to her injuries.
Skateland’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Skateland sought summary judgment on the grounds that
Myers assumed the risk of injury by engaging in a sport with an
inherent risk of falling. Skateland argued that it did not increase
the risk of injury and owed Myers no duty, as a matter of law.
Myers admitted in her deposition that she knows skaters may
collide and has witnessed collisions and falls in rinks.
1 Defendant Lee is not involved in this appeal.
2
Skateland’s president declared that closed circuit television
video (CCTV) images show Myers’s skating session.2 Three floor
guards in black and white referee shirts were skating on the
floor. A director supervising the floor had a microphone to make
public announcements. About 150 skaters were present, which
was not overly crowded. Industry guidelines recommend one
floor guard for every 200 skaters.
CCTV images show Myers being bumped by a skater who
made contact with her outstretched arm when he passed her.
This “incidental contact between skaters . . . is endemic in the
activity,” according to Skateland’s president.
Skateland’s manager averred that three floor guards in
referee shirts skated with patrons. The manager was alerted
that a patron was skating too fast. She spoke to him and advised
him to skate safely, control his speed and be mindful of others.
There were no further complaints about him. Later, the same
man bumped into Myers.
Myers’s Opposition
Myers did not dispute that skating involves a risk of being
bumped or pushed by others, or that there can be contact during
skating, or that she could get injured. She wrote, “Geraldine
asserts that she is fully aware of the assumption of risk when
skating in skating rinks.”
Myers claimed that floor guards were not in the rink. The
disc jockey, the program director, and the manager are not floor
guards because they have permanent stations and cannot “stop
2 Myers did not object to the admissibility of the CCTV
images or deny that her fall can be seen in them.
3
speedy skaters.” Myers contended that the incident would not
have occurred if more skate guards were on the premises.
She argued that “for the past 40 years of skating she has
never succumbed to a fall” or been bumped because other rinks
are better regulated. Myers admitted that Skateland’s manager
spoke to defendant Lee and instructed him to slow down. She
claimed that Lee ignored the instruction and bumped her when
she obeyed a “stop skating” instruction while employees removed
gum from the skating surface. Myers did not submit an expert
declaration showing that the skating rink was improperly
maintained or staffed.
The Trial Court’s Ruling
The court wrote that it is undisputed that “bumping into
other skaters and falling is an inherent risk of roller skating,
especially in a group setting such as the [one] that Plaintiff
participated in on the night of the incident.” The only issue is
whether Skateland “unreasonably increased the risks to Plaintiff
over and above those inherent in roller skating.”
Skateland had several floor guards on the skating surface
for 150 patrons, which exceeded industry standards suggesting
one guard for every 200 skaters. Myers offered no evidence that
Skateland violated industry standards. CCTV tapes show two
skate guards, and Myers slowly skating when her arm was
bumped by a man skating past her.
The court concluded that assumption of risk applies and
Skateland did not increase the risk of harm. Myers failed to
show a triable issue that the number of skate guards was
inadequate or that the skater who bumped her was skating
recklessly or fast when they collided. Instead, “The accident
appears to be a low-speed interaction that caused Plaintiff to lose
4
her balance and fall.” The court granted summary judgment and
entered judgment for Skateland.
DISCUSSION
1. Appeal and Review
The judgment is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 437c,
subd. (m)(1), 904.1, subd. (a)(1).) A motion for summary
judgment must be granted if no triable issue of material fact
exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. (§ 437c, subd. (c).) The procedure enables courts to cut
through the pleadings and determine if trial is necessary.
(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)
We independently examine the record to determine if
triable issues exist. (Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008)
43 Cal.4th 56, 64.) Evidence presented in opposition to summary
judgment is liberally construed. (Regents of University of
California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 618.)
2. Elements of Myers’s Claims
The elements of negligence and premises liability claims
are the same. Myers must prove a legal duty of care and a breach
of that duty that proximately causes injury. (Kesner v. Superior
Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158; Ladd v. County of San Mateo
(1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917–918 [negligence]; Ortega v. Kmart
Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205 [premises liability]; Castellon
v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)
3. Assumption of the Risk Doctrine
Primary assumption of risk applies when a defendant owes
no duty to protect a plaintiff from harm, as a matter of law and
policy. (Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38
Cal.4th 148, 161.) When determining if a duty is owed, the focus
is on the nature of a sport or activity and the defendant’s role in
5
it. (Ibid.) “[T]he existence and scope of a defendant’s duty of care
is a legal question . . . to be decided by the court, rather than the
jury. [Citation.] Thus, the question of assumption of risk is
much more amenable to resolution by summary judgment.”
(Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 313.)
A defendant has no duty to eliminate or protect against
risks inherent in a sport, but cannot unreasonably “increase the
risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport.”
(Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 315–316.) The same
rule applies to recreational activities. (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P.
(2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1155–1156, 1162 (Nalwa).) State policy
seeks “to avoid chilling vigorous participation in or sponsorship of
recreational activities by imposing a tort duty to eliminate or
reduce the risks of harm inherent in those activities,” possibly
causing them to be altered or abandoned. (Id. at p. 1156.)
A person engaging in an inherently risky activity assumes
a risk of injury. Collisions between skaters in a rink are an
inherent risk of skating. (Staten v. Superior Court (1996) 45
Cal.App.4th 1628, 1634.)3 Recreation provider Skateland need
not decrease inherent risks; however, it cannot increase the risks
of injury beyond those inherent in the activity. (Nalwa, supra, 55
Cal.4th at p. 1162; Aaris v. Las Virgenes Unified School Dist.
(1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1120 (Aaris); Balthazor v. Little
League Baseball, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 47, 52.)
3 Numerous states (Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois, North
and South Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, and Maine) have
enacted laws deeming that skaters assume the risk of collisions
and falls.
6
4. Myers Did Not Show Breach of a Duty
Myers does not contest that skating is inherently risky or
deny that she assumed a risk of injury by patronizing Skateland’s
rink. Her only claim is that Skateland increased the risk of harm
beyond what is inherent in skating. No evidence supports her
claim.
Myers argues that Skateland “failed to have a proper
number of skate guards” on its premises. Unrefuted evidence
shows (a) there were 150 patrons on the skating surface, (b)
industry standards recommend one skate guard per 200 skaters,
(c) Skateland’s president declared that there were three skate
guards, and (d) CCTV images show two skate guards near Myers.
Skateland proved that it met industry safety standards, and
Myers did not submit contrary evidence.
Myers argues that Lee ignored Skateland’s instructions to
slow down, then “harshly” bumped her. CCTV images do not
support her claim. They show Myers and Lee moving slowly after
Skateland suspended skating to remove gum from the floor. Lee
clipped Myers’s arm as he skated past, causing her to lose
balance. This incidental contact could not have been prevented
by more skate guards or warnings. It is inevitable that a skater
may move unexpectedly, or throw out an arm, resulting in
unintended contact with another skater and a potential loss of
balance. Skateland had no duty to decrease that inherent risk.
(Aaris, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 1120.)
Myers opines that Skateland could have acted differently
by removing skaters from the rink while it was being cleaned
rather than having them halt. Myers did not dispute that she
was starting to skate after leaving the carpeted area. CCTV
images show Lee entering the floor behind Myers, and a collision
7
as he passed her; thus, they did, in fact, exit the skating floor and
it did not prevent a collision. Myers’s opinion does not raise a
triable issue when there is no evidence that Skateland increased
the inherent risks of the skating. (American Golf Corp. v.
Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 30, 39.)
Short of fundamentally changing skating by encasing
skaters in a mound of bubble wrap, the possibility of injury
cannot be avoided as skaters turn, slow, and speed up while
maneuvering around the rink, creating an inherent risk of
collisions. (See Nalwa, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 1157–1158 [a
recreational activity like bumper cars cannot eliminate risks of
collision and injury without changing its character, which
involves sudden changes in speed and direction].)
In sum, the risk of collisions is inherent in skating.
Skateland “had no duty of ordinary care to prevent injuries from
such an inherent risk of the activity. The absence of such a duty
defeats plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence as a matter of
law.” (Nalwa, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1163.) To the extent that
Myers argues that Skateland failed to take measures to minimize
collisions, her argument fails. (Id. at pp. 1163–1164.) Myers did
not carry her burden of showing that Skateland “unreasonably
increase[d] the risks of injury beyond those inherent in the
activity.” (Id. p. 1162) The trial court properly granted
Skateland’s motion for summary judgment.
8
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent Skateland is
awarded its costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
LUI, P. J.
We concur:
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
CHAVEZ, J.
9