Myers v. Skateland Enterprises CA2/2

Filed 9/23/24 Myers v. Skateland Enterprises CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

GERALDINE MYERS, B328404

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 21STCV09851)

SKATELAND ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lynne M. Hobbs, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Theida Salazar and Theida Salazar for Plaintiff and Appellant. Amaro | Baldwin, Michael L. Amaro and Sanaz Cherazaie for Defendant and Respondent. ___________________________________

Geraldine Myers was injured in a fall at a roller-skating rink after another skater bumped her arm. She sued rink owner Skateland Enterprises, Inc. On de novo review of Skateland’s motion for summary judgment, we conclude that the assumption of risk doctrine forecloses Myers’s claims. Myers concedes that skating is inherently risky and did not show that Skateland increased the risks of injury beyond those inherent to skating. There are no triable issues of disputed fact. We affirm the judgment for Skateland. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Myers’s Complaint On December 29, 2019, Myers went to Skateland in Northridge. She was struck from behind on the skating floor by defendant Jason Lee.1 Myers lost her balance and fell, sustaining arm and hand injuries that required treatment at a hospital. Myers sued Skateland for negligence and premises liability. She alleged that it lacked trained personnel “to prevent the wild skating of Defendant Lee.” The lack of safety measures and monitoring presented “a risk of the massively unsafe skating” that led to her injuries. Skateland’s Motion for Summary Judgment Skateland sought summary judgment on the grounds that Myers assumed the risk of injury by engaging in a sport with an inherent risk of falling. Skateland argued that it did not increase the risk of injury and owed Myers no duty, as a matter of law. Myers admitted in her deposition that she knows skaters may collide and has witnessed collisions and falls in rinks.