Spectators at youth sporting events have been known to get over-emotional, shall we say. In light of this, USA Hockey established a “Zero Tolerance” policy empowering on-ice officials to remove spectators due to obscene or vulgar language and for threatening or using violence. The question of whether this policy can be used to establish a floor for legal duty has been wending its way through New York courts in Pink v. Rome Youth Hockey Association, Inc.. The New York Court of Appeals has just laid the issue to rest. In a nutshell, the policy is an internal rule for the Association that does not supersede the standard of ordinary care imposed in a negligence action.
The plaintiff had attended a hockey tournament game between 13 year olds. There were approximately 50 to 75 spectators in attendance. During the game, several fights broke out on the ice between the players. Some were penalized; some were ejected from the game. The coach of one of the teams was ejected when he threw an object onto the ice.
The spectators, who were mostly family members, were also emotionally invested in the game and were yelling and calling names. Nonetheless, the game ended without any spectators coming to blows. But not for long, as two female spectators got into a fight in the stands. The plaintiff alleged he was injured while stepping in to break up the fight between the two female spectators. In the process, the brother of one of the girls punched the plaintiff in the head causing a brain injury. The assailant pled guilty to criminal assault.
Plaintiff filed suit against various parties including the hockey league. Relying upon the USA Hockey policy, he argued that the hockey association breached its duty to him by failing to protect him from assault. The hockey association filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it did not have a duty to protect the plaintiff from a random assault where there was no history of violence or physical confrontation.
The Court held that the WYHA had a duty to protect spectators from foreseeable criminal conduct. However, the Court distinguished between “foreseeability and duty”. Although the fans behavior became rowdy during the game, this was insufficient to provide notice that failure to eject any specific spectator would result in criminal conduct. Significantly, the Court held that the violation of an organization’s internal rules is not negligence in and of itself.
Thanks to Christopher Goia for his contribution.