Kennedy v. Providence Hockey Club
Facts
Mrs. Kennedy attended a hockey game at the Rhode Island Auditorium and sat in Section F North, Row A, the fourth row from the ice, where the plexiglass protection covered only the first three rows. During a face-off near her section, a puck was lofted into the crowd and struck her over the left eye. Before this incident, she had attended 30 or 40 games at the auditorium and had watched many televised hockey games, during which she had seen pucks hit the plexiglass and go into the crowd. She and her fiance bought the Section F North seats because they were the only seats remaining for that game.
Issue
Whether Rhode Island's comparative negligence statute eliminates or reduces assumption of the risk as a distinct complete defense in negligence actions. Also, whether on these facts Mrs. Kennedy assumed the risk as a matter of law, and whether her ticket/seat could support breach of warranty or products liability claims.
Rule
In Rhode Island, assumption of the risk is distinct from contributory negligence and remains a complete bar to recovery notwithstanding the comparative negligence statute. Assumption of the risk is judged by a subjective standard keyed to what the particular plaintiff in fact saw, knew, understood, and appreciated, and it applies only where the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the hazard and voluntarily encountered it. When a plaintiff knowingly accepts a dangerous situation, the defendant's duty to that plaintiff is terminated.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If Lena argues that Rhode Island's comparative negligence statute merely reduces her damages rather than bars recovery, what is the strongest response?