Personal Injury Law: Defendant’s motion to strike is granted based on the plaintiff’s failure to allege that the defendant-owner of the hockey rink violated a duty owed to the plaintiff after he was injured by an opponent during an adult hockey league game

The plaintiff was allegedly injured by an opposing player during an adult hockey league game at a skating rink owned and operated by the defendant. The defendant moves to strike Count Three of the plaintiff’s complaint, which asserts a claim for negligence.

Plaintiff’s Allegations of Negligence

In Count Three, the plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the defendant’s negligence, including the defendant’s alleged failure to provide safe playing conditions, failure to require the adult hockey league to maintain adequate insurance coverage, and failure to ensure that the adult hockey league instructed participants to behave in a safe and sportsmanlike manner.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Plaintiff’s Response

However, the complaint is devoid of any facts that allege that the defendant, as the owner of the rink, was involved in the operation of the adult hockey league, supervision of the league’s play, or played any role in the events that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff attempts to allege that the defendant was a “partner” in the league based on a marketing statement made on the defendant’s website which states, “[the defendant] is proud to partner with [the adult hockey league] for all adult league games.”

Court’s Ruling on the Motion to Strike

The court finds that this is a vague indication of some relationship between the defendant and the hockey league that is consistent with the defendant doing nothing more than renting the rink for league games, without any role in the operation or supervision of the league or its games. Without allegations of subordinate fact that would tend to demonstrate that the defendant had some control or involvement or participation in the league’s activities, the court finds that the defendant cannot be held to have breached any legal duty owed to the plaintiff.

In particular, the court states that the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of any specific rule, policy, or practice of the defendant relating to the safety of participants in the hockey game in which the plaintiff was injured, or any other basis for alleging any duty to impose such a rule or follow such policies or practices. Moreover, the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant failed to require the league to maintain adequate insurance coverage is unrelated to causation of the plaintiff’s alleged injury and lacks factual basis for any legal duty owed to the plaintiff.

The defendant’s motion to strike Count Three is granted.

Peter Maro v. Edward Cliff Merrill, No. FST CV 23-6061352 S, 2024 WL 4947293 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 26, 2024)