Source: http://mccagueborlack.com/emails/articles/fans-risk.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:26:47+00:00

Document:
From the "We the North" campaign that the Toronto Raptors inspired back in the early spring to the successful Pan-Am games held here this summer to the very recent "Blue Jays Mania" that took the city by storm this fall, it is no exaggeration to say that Toronto was swept up in a sports fever this past year. Stadiums were jam-packed and ticket prices were through the roof. Games were attended in record numbers, and for those who recall the 7th inning of Game 5 between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Texas Rangers, you know that passions in the stadium were at near-record highs. Sporting events in general are often associated with throngs of fans (fanatics), fervent emotions, and consumption of alcohol. The interaction of these three factors creates a "perfect storm" that increases the likelihood of spectator injury.
Occupiers have a duty to ensure that the facility where the sporting event is held is reasonably safe. It is important to note that the standard of care is based on foreseeable risk, which is to be distinguished from an absolute guarantee of maintaining a completely risk-free environment. In determining whether an occupier has in fact discharged its duty, a court will take into consideration the nature of the sporting event, any inherent risks, and whether the spectator can foresee those risks. The trier of fact may also rely on expert testimony to provide information regarding the industry standard for safety precautions in a given sport.
An injured spectator who has paid for a ticket can potentially sue an occupier for breach of the implied term that the seat sold to him will be safe. In order for the spectator to qualify as acontractual entrant, he must be on the premises for primarily the same reason as was contracted for.
Although plaintiffs may be able to pursue this cause of action, the bulk of actions emerging from injuries to spectators are pursued under the auspices of the Occupiers' Liability Act.
The Occupiers' Liability Act (the "Act") provides that the occupier of a premises owes a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of persons and property entering the premises. According to section 1 of the Act, an occupier is defined to include persons in physical possession of the premises or who are responsible for, or have control over, the condition of the premises, the activities conducted there, or the persons allowed to enter.4 Section 3(2) of the Act clarifies this duty as applying to risks caused not only by the condition of the premises, but also to the activities that take place on or in the premises.
Based on the foregoing, the operator of a sporting event or facility is under a duty to exercise reasonable care in organizing and supervising the event to ensure that both participants and spectators are reasonably safe. The occupier of the premises or the operator of the event or facility thus owes a statutory duty towards spectators that enter the premises.
An action brought by a spectator may target the individual participant, team, league, or other appropriate parties.
A spectator who is injured during the course of a sporting event may commence an action against the occupier of the facility where the sporting event was held. Notably, under the Act, there can be more than one occupier of the same premises. For example, the owner of the premises and the occupier with control of the premises need not be the same party. In such instances, the court will need to look at the specific facts of the case in order to determine liability.7 An action brought by a spectator may target the individual participant, team, league, or other appropriate parties.
The plaintiffs in this case were referees who were injured in attacks launched on them by players at a Junior B Lacrosse match. The attacks took place while on the field of play during the game and later near the locker rooms after the game had ended. The question that the court was tasked with answering was whether the team's duty was limited to the playing field itself, or whether it encompassed the entire arena including the locker rooms where the attack took place.
The trial judge found that the team was only the occupier of the field itself and not the rest of the arena.9 The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed and extended the team management's duty to include supervision of areas other than the playing field itself. The Court of Appeal found that the broad duty to provide policing and supervision made relatively little sense if the team's obligation concerned only the playing surface. Although the Court of Appeal held that the team's duty extended beyond the playing surface, it ultimately held that the team was not liable for the harm to the plaintiffs, as the events in question were “unexpected” and were not reasonably foreseeable.
In opposition to the motion, the referees' counsel argued that it was unnecessary to add the referees to the action as defendants, as a duty of care was owed to the spectators by the occupier of the land through any employees, agents, contractors, or servants. Essentially, counsel for the referees argued that the occupiers of the land were vicariously liable for the referees' acts and/or omissions. The court did not address this issue on the motion. However, it will be interesting to see how this issue is addressed at trial. The question that potentially emerges from these proceedings is whether an occupier who hires referees for a sporting event is vicariously liable for the referees acts and/or omissions.
...athletes have let their passions get the better of them and have taken out aggression on spectators in the audience.
Aside from issues pertaining to referees' liability, athletes may also find themselves responding to a spectator's claim for injuries sustained during a sporting event. There have been numerous instances where athletes have let their passions get the better of them and have taken out aggression on spectators in the audience.
In one instance, dubbed, “Malice at the Palace”, during a game between the Indiana Pacers and the Detroit Pistons on November 19, 2004, a fight between a few players developed into a brawl between fans, players, and coaches. The Associated Press described it as the most infamous brawl in NBA history.
Similarly, on March 29, 2001, Tie Domi, a Toronto Maple Leafs player, pummelled a fan of the Philadelphia Flyers when that fan fell into the penalty box that Mr. Domi was sitting in.
If similar cases arise in the future, a point of consideration will be whether occupiers of sports fields and arenas will be held vicariously liable for the actions and/or inactions of referees or athletes that result in harm to spectators. Hopefully the trial judge in Madden v. Holy Cross Catholic Secondary School will address this very issue and provide guidance for occupiers and their liability insurers alike.
While it is rare to see a trespassing spectator enter a sports facility, due to the fact entry is usually monitored in a way that makes this difficult, there may be cases where spectators "trespass" or gain entry into certain areas of the sports facility that are purposefully "out of bounds."
In Deyo v. Kingston Speedway Ltd.,15 the plaintiffs paid admission to attend an auto race at the defendant's track. During the race, a car spun out of control and smashed into a guardrail, causing debris to be hurled through the air, which struck the plaintiffs. One of the plaintiffs died instantly and another was seriously injured.
One way in which operators of an event may seek to limit their liability is through the printing of limitation of liability clauses on the entrance ticket to a sporting event. Generally, in order to be able to rely on this exclusion, the language used must be clear, specific, and must somehow be brought to the attention of the spectator. However, in cases that have gone to trial, it does not appear as if defendants have attempted to use such a limitation clause in this context as a defence for claims brought by spectators. As such, there has been little guidance from the courts with respect to the effectiveness of these specific clauses on the backs of sporting event tickets.
This has become known as the "reasonable steps test."
However, the courts have examined the efficacy of waivers in the context of participants in sporting activities. This may shed light on how a defence in a prospective spectator claim might be approached by the courts. Typically, waivers have been found sufficient where the defendant is able to demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to bring the contractual terms regarding the exclusion of liability to the participant's attention.17 This has become known as the "reasonable steps test."
In Loychuk v. Cougar Mountain Adventures Ltd., the British Columbia Court of Appeal was asked to rule on whether a waiver that released a resort from all liability, including claims arising from the resort's own negligence, was valid.19 This case dealt with a zip-line tour in which the plaintiffs were injured due to the negligence of the resort. The plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that the waiver was not valid at common law because it was unconscionable.
As a risk management tool, all occupiers should adopt and display language that aims to limit any liability for injuries that may befall spectators while on the occupiers' premises. This can be done through several avenues, such as a reproduction of language on the tickets to sporting events and on signage that is reproduced in high traffic areas throughout the premises. It is important to note that whether the language appears on the tickets or on signage, it must be "eye-catching" enough so as to draw the spectator's attention to it. It is likely that "fine print" reproduced on the ticket will not satisfy this requirement.
In Reese v. Coleman, the plaintiff was struck by a snowmobile that went off the track while attending a race for which he paid admission.26 The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the defendant toboggan club was negligent because it did not take any steps to block off the area where the plaintiff spectator was standing, thus allowing the plaintiff to presume that it was safe.
More recently, in Dyke v. British Columbia Amateur Softball Assn., the plaintiff was struck in the head by a foul ball while standing in the spectator's section keeping score.27 The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a judgment in favor of the defendant that reiterated that the occupier's duty to spectators is to provide a standard of care based on reasonableness. Furthermore, the Court held that there must be a causal connection between an omission on the part of the occupier, and the plaintiff's injury. Finally, the Court stated that "[i]n sports cases, the reasonable standard of protection for a given location is largely determined by reference to the industry standard."
An occupier may also succeed in defending a plaintiff's claim where it can be shown that the risk of the harm that the plaintiff suffered was not foreseeable.
More recently, in Burns v. Tri-City Wrestling, the court considered a situation where a spectator at a wrestling match, seated just outside the wrestling ring, was injured after one wrestler picked up his opponent and launched him into the audience.29 The wrestler landed on the spectator, crushing him on the floor. The spectator sued the lodge where the match took place. The court ultimately held that this was "not a reasonably foreseeable accident" and that although no warning signs were in place, there was "no evidence that any warning signs or similar steps would have discouraged Mr. Burns from sitting in the front row."
Even if a spectator is able to show that harm was foreseeable, if the occupier can show that sufficient precautions were taken and that the spectator was aware of the inherent risks, then the defendant may still be able to stave off the claim.
In Elliott v. Amphitheatre Ltd., the plaintiff was seated in the front row of the defendant's ice rink watching a hockey game for which he had a paid ticket and was hit by a puck.30 The plaintiff sued the operator of the rink, claiming that it was negligent due to its failure to secure the protection of spectators by installing protective wiring or netting. The Manitoba Court of King's Bench dismissed the action, noting that the defendant was not an insurer against dangers that were incidental to the hockey game. Rather, the defendant must take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of spectators, which it had done.
Spectators at baseball games face a similar risk of being struck by a flying object. In Noonan v. Exhibition Place, the minor plaintiff attended a Blue Jays baseball game with his father at Exhibition Stadium.35 The child was hit by a baseball while seated in a section close to the field, where there was no protective screen. The court held that the occupier, Exhibition Stadium, was not liable, as the plaintiff knowingly and willingly sat in a section that did not offer the same degree of protection as did other areas of the stadium.
On August 21, 2015, a fan attending a game between the Detroit Tigers and the Texas Rangers was hit by a foul ball during the game and sustained severe injuries. Within a day, players had called on the MLB to extend protective netting behind home plate.36 Justin Verlander took the complaint public by tweeting "More protective measures need to be put in place in all parks! Players are sick of seeing injuries that could easily be avoided!"37 Tigers' third baseman Nick Castellanos put it well when he stated that if the tragedy that occurred today "...doesn't get nets up, what is it going to take?"38 The MLB has apparently begun examining ways to increase spectator safety at its 30 stadiums, but no policy changes are expected before the end of the 2015 campaign.39 This is certainly something to keep an eye on going forward.
The legislation and case law clearly stands for the proposition that an occupier is not an insurer that guarantees that its premises will be completely risk-free. Even in cases where the plaintiff has sustained serious injuries, the courts have consistently looked to industry standards in determining whether the occupier has met the reasonableness standard. In cases where the occupier meets this standard, the plaintiff's claim will be dismissed.
Furthermore, the courts tend to take into account factors that are case-specific, such as whether or not the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the risks associated with a particular sport, as well as the area in which he or she decided to watch the said event.
It is arguable that there are inherent risks with all sporting events. However, at trial, the question becomes whether the risk assumed by the spectator is foreseeable and reasonable in the circumstances. The answer is invariably decided by the facts of the case, as well as expert opinions on the industry standards.
3 Linden,Canadian Tort Law, 5th Ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1993) at 618.
4 R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 as amended, at s.1.
5 Cherniak, Linden, Klar, Kryworuk, ed. by Rainaldi, Remedies in Tort Volume 3 (Toronto: Thomson Reuters Canada Limited, 20`5 - Release 8) at 18-24.1.
6 Kerr v. Loblaws Inc.  OJ No 1921 (Ont. C.A.).
7 R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, as amended, at s. 1(b).
8 Olinski v. Johnson, 1997 CarswellOnt 1393, 32 OR 3d 653(Ont. C.A.).
9 Olinski v. Johnson  OJ No 2398, 1992 CarswellOnt 4069 (Ont. S.C.J.) at 21.
10 Madden v. Holy Cross Catholic Secondary School, 2015 ONSC 1773, 2015 CarswellOnt 7670 (Ont. S.C.J.).
12 R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, as amended, at s. 5(3).
13 R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, as amended, at s. 3(3).
14 R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, as amended, at s. 4(1).
16 For pictures of the Kingston Speedway: UrbexPlayground - Abandoned Kingston Speedway.
17 Best v. Deal, 2008 ONCA 26, 2008 CarswellOnt 141(Ont. C.A).
18  O.J. No. 3916 (Ont. S.C.J.) at 20.
19 2012 BCCA 122, 2012 BCJ No 504 (B.C.C.A.).
21 2015 ONSC 2301, 2015 CarswellOnt 6844 (Ont. S.C.J.).
23 Ibid at 50 and 58.
24  809 N.E. 2d 1090, p. 303.
25 Ibid at p. 303.
26  S.J. No. 535, 4 W.W.R. 58 (Sask. C.A.).
27 2008 BCCA 3, 2008 CarswellBC 11 (B.C.C.A.).
28  O.J. No. 515, 1948 CarswellOnt 82.
29 2013 CarswellOnt 2278, 226 A.C.W.S. (3d) 597 (Ont. S.C.J.).
30  3W.W.R. 223 (Man. K.B.).
31 Leigh Augustine, "Who is responsible When Spectators are Injured While Attending Professional Sporting Events?" (2008) Univ. of Den. Sports and Entertainment L. J. at 12.
33 Brett Celedonia, "Flying Objects: Arena Liability for Fan injuries in Hockey and Other Sports" (2008) 15 Sports L.J.115.
34 National Hockey League Official Rules 2014-2014 at 1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.