Case details

Injury from flying hockey puck was unforeseeable: defense

SUMMARY

$64203.02

Amount

Verdict-Plaintiff

Result type

Not present

Ruling
KEYWORDS
brain, brain injury, cervical, cognition, concussion, depression, head, headaches, mental, neck, psychological, strain, traumatic brain injury
FACTS
At around 1 p.m. on Jan. 4, 2014, plaintiffs Trina Adam, 58, a real estate agent and loan modification officer, and her husband were attending their 5-year-old granddaughter’s birthday party at LA Kings Icetown, in Riverside. At the time, Icetown had two skating rinks: Adam’s granddaughter and other guests of the party had a free skate on one rink while a men’s hockey league game was being played on the other rink. Although guests of the party were not spectators of the game, at one point, they were standing in a party room, which was located near both rinks. As Adam and her husband were talking to each other, a hockey puck from the men’s league game was hit or deflected out of the rink and into the party room, which lacked any ceiling. The hockey puck struck Adam in the head. Adam sued the operator of LA Kings Icetown, Dunn Enterprises Inc. (which was also erroneously sued as LA Kings Icetown) and the operator of the men’s hockey league, the Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club LP (which was initially erroneously sued as LA Kings). The matter was originally filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Docket No. BC552605), but it was ultimately transferred to Riverside County Superior Court. In addition, the Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club was dismissed for a waiver of costs before trial. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the party room in which guests were in was negligently constructed, in that it did not have a protective ceiling, and that the rink where the puck came from did not have adequate netting surrounding it to protect patrons. Counsel also contended that there were no warnings to alert unsuspecting patrons of the risk of injury from pucks and that party guests did not assume the risk of injury from an errant puck, as they were neither attending nor watching the hockey game. Defense counsel asserted that Dunn Enterprises was not negligent, in that the subject rink was bordered by adequate protective netting, and that there was no prior history of pucks entering the party room. As such, defense counsel argued that the incident was an unforeseeable, freak accident., Adam claimed that she was knocked her unconscious. As a result, she was treated by paramedics at the scene and then transported by ambulance to Parkview Community Hospital, in Riverside, where she was diagnosed with a concussion and a neck strain. Adam then began treating with a series of neurologists, internists, and psychologists, all of whom diagnosed her with a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and, later, psychological problems, which included major depression and adjustment disorder. In addition, Adam contended that she suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and that she was left with lasting post-concussion syndrome. Adam claimed that her memory problems, dizziness, headaches, fatigue, neck pain and other symptoms of post-concussion syndrome left her unable to work as a real estate agent and loan modification officer since the incident and that she will not be able to work for at least another two years. She also claimed that, according to her treating physicians and the defense’s experts, she will require cognitive therapy and anti-depressant medication to address her ongoing psychological problems. Thus, Adam’s sought recovery of $19,103.02 in past medical costs, up to $7,000 in future medical costs, $80,000 in past lost earnings, and $40,000 in future lost earnings. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Adam’s husband, Dino Adam, sought recovery of damages for his loss of consortium. In addition, he claimed that he was entitled to bystander damages as a result of witnessing his wife’s injury. Defense counsel agreed that Ms. Adam’s past medical treatment and costs were reasonable and necessary. However, counsel disputed that Ms. Adam was entitled to any significant recovery for her alleged loss of earnings, claiming that Ms. Adam’s head injury was merely a contusion or, at worse, a very mild concussion and that Ms. Adam’s neck injury was merely a sprain, all of which should have resolved within a few months.
COURT
Superior Court of Riverside County, Riverside, CA

Recommended Experts

NEED HELP? TALK WITH AN EXPERT

Get a FREE consultation for your case