When you suffer damage on an ice rink, whether indoor or outdoor, a civil liability claim is possible, provided, of course, that you prove fault on the part of the owner of the establishment, damage and a causal link between the two previous elements.
In what cases can the rink owner be held liable for damage to the skater?
The responsibility of the owner of the rink
In order to succeed in your appeal, you will have to prove a fault committed by the owner or by the person in charge of the rink.
First of all, it should be noted that by operating and deciding to open an outdoor or indoor skating rink to the public, the city or the owner of the building not only undertakes to offer space to practice ice sports, but also undertakes to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of users.
When it comes to an outdoor skating rink, the owner has a duty to consider the temperature and weather conditions so that the icy surface is as safe as possible, especially if it is on a watercourse.
The owner must also check that the ice does not pose any danger to users. For example, it has an obligation to provide an ice rink that is free of cracks or holes that can cause skaters to fall.
Limitation to the owner’s liability
However, it is important to point out that the case-law agrees that the safety obligation of a city or a sports centre owner is only an obligation of means, similar to that which guides doctors.
In fact, in L’Écuyer v. Quail, the Court of Appeal established that, contrary to an obligation of result, the managers of sports centres do not have to guarantee that no harm or damage will be suffered. They can therefore absolve themselves of their responsibilities to users by demonstrating that they have taken all possible measures to avoid abnormal accidents, that is, those that do not result from foreseeable risks associated with skating or ice sports, such as hockey.
Thus, the owner must take the necessary measures to maintain the ice, repair cracks or, at least, notify customers of their existence if circumstances make it impossible to plug them immediately.
However, the mere fact of warning of the presence of a danger on the ice rink is not always sufficient to fulfill its obligation of means.
For example, in Dupuis v. Sherbrooke, the plaintiff claimed more than $80,000 because she had fallen on an outdoor rink due to a hole in the ice. The defendant, the City of Sherbrooke, then argued that a sign warning of the risk of cracks on the ice was present on the day of the accident, and that therefore, Ms. Dupuis should have been more careful while skating. In this decision, the Court still ordered the City to compensate the victim and awarded him 75% of the responsibility for not clearly identifying the dangerous areas on the icy surface.
Acceptance of risks
Of course, it must be borne in mind that skating, like many other winter activities such as skiing or tubing, carries risks inherent in this sport.
A reasonable skater is then aware of the harm they could suffer by falling and accidentally injuring themselves during a hockey game or simply during a recreational skating session.
The principle is similar to that of accepting risks associated with alpine skiing, that is, you can consent and accept only those risks that you know and have been warned of.
For more information on this topic, please see our article on the acceptance of risks associated with sports and recreational activities.
The responsibility of the user
It is important to remember that as a skater, you have a duty to act diligently to reduce your risk of accidents and damage.
This means that you must equip yourself properly and that you must also be aware of the safety rules of the establishment and apply them carefully. You must also be alert to the various warnings that the owner may have given to you, otherwise the Tribunal may grant you some or even all of it.
Proving fault
To maximize your chances of success, you will first have to prove, by the balance of probabilities, that a fault was indeed committed by the owner and his lack of maintenance of the ice.
In order to facilitate your steps and increase your chances of success during the procedures, it is strongly recommended to take pictures of the place and especially of the state of the ice at the time and place where you fell. Credible testimony may also be sufficient to prove fault.
For example, in another case, Mr. Boucher fell and fractured his leg while playing hockey in an arena owned by the City of Thurso. He then filed a lawsuit against the City and claimed $150,000 in compensation because he claimed that it was the poor maintenance of the ice that caused it to fall. Indeed, according to Mr. Boucher, his skate would have remained stuck in a crack 3/4 inch deep.
Here, the Tribunal points out that it is not difficult to assess the damage caused by the fall. However, the plaintiff failed to convince the judge, by a preponderance of evidence, of the very existence of the crack and therefore of the lack of maintenance of the city. He had not taken any photos of where he had fallen and no witnesses could confirm the presence of a crack in the ice at the time of Mr. Boucher’s fall. The Court was therefore unable to conclude that a fault had been committed by the City and the application was dismissed.
Remember, however, that every case is different and all facts must be analyzed as a whole.
If you have been injured on a municipal or private ice rink, do not hesitate to contact our firm so that we can evaluate your file.
If you liked this article and want to read more, follow our Facebook page so you don’t miss our weekly legal capsules on different legal topics!