Riding Into Litigation: An Overview of Skateboard and Hover Board Liability
Robert D. Lang and Rachel Nudel write: Whether skateboard, electric hover board, or hybrid electric skateboard, the use of these small personal vehicles presents a range of legal issues for the general public, operators and practitioners.
January 22, 2018 at 02:30 PM
11 minute read
Skateboarding is a common recreational activity for many. The activity suffers from the conception by some that it is an activity for “slackers.” Many associate skateboard with Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly, riding a skateboard in Back to the Future (1985). However, the activity has been romanticized in popular culture for decades with moves like Thrashin (1986), Grind (2003) and The Lords of Dogtown (2005). The International Olympic Committee voted unanimously to include skateboarding in the Summer 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo. Despite the continued popularity of skateboarding, the activity is also relatively dangerous to the non-professional participant and third-parties and raises several issues in the context of litigating skateboarding accidents.
Jerry Seinfeld once said, “I'll tell you one of the great activities is skateboarding. To learn to do a skateboard trick, how many times do you have to get something wrong till you get it right? And if you learn to do that trick, now you've got a life lesson. Whenever I see those skateboard kids, I think those kids are going to be alright.” But will they be alright? And what about pedestrians and cyclists, in the same space? The indisputable fact is that skateboarders vie pedestrians, joggers and cyclists with the increasingly congested lanes in cities intended for non-vehicular traffic. Consequences are both evident and obvious: less room to travel and maneuver for more people traveling in a variety of ways. The inherent instability of a skateboard, which can reach speeds up to 40 mph (Renthnam, U., et al., “Skateboards: Are they really perilous? A retrospective study from a district hospital,” BMC Research Notes 2008, 1:59), while exciting to some, can also lead to serious injuries, including abrasions, lacerations, sprains, strains, fractures and head trauma. In fact, the International Classification of Diseases has dedicated a diagnostic code to injuries sustained in a skateboarding accident. 2017/18 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code V00.13: Skateboard accident.
Besides injuring oneself, skateboarders also risk injuring others in a collision. The leading cause of death while skateboarding occurred from collisions with motor vehicles. In 2016, an 18-year-old skateboarder died after he collided with a NYC Parks Department truck. Schrader, A., “Skateboarder dies colliding with truck in Queens,” New York Daily News, April 17, 2016. Also in 2016, a married, 32-year-old-father of two and former chef was killed when he was crushed under the wheels of a truck after he grabbed onto the truck to catch a ride on his skateboard, also known as “skitching.” Maslin, Sarah Nir, “A Skateboard Stunt Turns Fatal for a Former Chef,” The New York Times, Jan. 13, 2016.
Skating recklessly is outlawed in New York City, with recklessness defined as skating in a fashion such as to threaten the health or possessions of another person. Local Law No. 43 (1996) of City of New York. But what about skating in a matter that is not reckless? Pursuant to NYC Regulations, skateboards may not be operated in public parks, except within areas that specifically authorize such activity. 21 CRR-NY §751.7
To address this issue, New York City has designated skate parks throughout the five boroughs. The City requires all skateboarders to sign a waiver of liability and to utilize protective gear, including helmets, knee pads, elbow pads and wrist guards for skateboarders under the age of 18.
Several public and private establishments have banned skateboarding, including the New York City subway. The reason that many places have banned skateboarding is because of liability to landowners for skateboarding accidents. A landowner can be held liable for a breach of duty to maintain the establishment where that breach of duty is a proximate cause of the injury. This translates to potential liability for landowners for accidents on their sidewalks (NY administrative Code §7-210), as well as for owners and operators of privately owned indoor skate parks.
Most skate parks require patrons to sign a liability waiver, indicating that neither the skate park, nor its employees are liable if the patron is injured at the skate park. However, such waivers are frequently void and/or unenforceable. General Obligations Law §5-326 prohibits an owner or operator of a recreational facility from enforcing a release given by an individual who has paid it a fee or provided other compensation for the recreational activity. This would preclude owners and operators from enforcing such waivers in most instances, unless, however, the activity was instructional, rather than recreational, and there was a clear intent to transfer liability. Boareng v. Motorcycle Safety School, 51 A.D.3d 702 (2d Dep't 2008).
In the event of injury at a skate park, counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants must endeavor to complete an investigation on liability as quickly as possible. This is important because ramps and other skate park equipment are frequently changed and/or reconfigured by skate parks in order to keep patrons interested in new and improved ramps and obstacles for their skating pleasure.
Counsel representing skate parks should act quickly to make sure that the ramp or equipment involved in the accident is preserved. Conversely, counsel for plaintiffs should act quickly by sending a letter requesting preservation of the equipment. Next, counsel on both sides are well advised to seek out any CCTV footage, which may have captured the incident on video. It is important to note that some CCTV system overwrite their footage within regular intervals (i.e., every 30 days). Facilities with newer cloud-based CCTV systems may have the capability to store footage in the cloud or an outside server.
In addition to CCTV footage, counsel from both sides should find out if there are videos created by the plaintiff or others at or around the time of the accident, and, if these videos were posted on YouTube or social media.
Once the equipment involved in the accident has been preserved, counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants should carefully examine the apparatus. Another important question to ask is who made the ramp, ledge or obstacle? Many skate parks pride themselves on building the ramps themselves. Others, however, obtain their ledges and ramps from manufacturers. In these instances, the manufacturer may be a proper party to a lawsuit by plaintiff and, in cases where plaintiff does not do so, defendant may implead the manufacturer for indemnification and/or contribution.
It is important to keep in mind that while anyone can be involved in a skateboarding accident, the majority of those injured are minors (with 52 percent of injuries sustained by those under 15). Miller, Sara G., “Skateboarding Sends a Shocking Number of Kids to the ER Every Day,” Huffington Post, April 12, 2016. This is significant for two primary reasons: (1) some orthopedic injuries sustained by minors, i.e., fracture to a growth plate can significantly increase damages. A growth plate fracture affects the layer of growing tissue near the ends of a child's bones. An injury that might cause a joint sprain for an adult can cause a growth plate fracture in a child, which can result in permanent deformity to the affected limb. Therefore, a sprain, strain or simple fracture in an adult or older teenager, can be more significant in a child, thereby significantly raising the value of the case.
When litigating skateboard accidents involving minors it is important to remember that unless the parent or guardian of the minor brings suit, the Statute of Limitations for personal injury suits is tolled until the minor turns 18. CPLR §208.
A layer of complexity has been added to skateboard litigation by the influx of “hover boards.” While these contraptions do not actually hover in the air as depicted in the hover board used by the Jetsons' precocious son Elroy in the 1960s futuristic cartoon, The Jetsons, (ABC, 1962-1963), nor as depicted in Back to the Future II (1989) (Universal Pictures, 1989), electric hover boards whizzed into popularity in 2015, with riders ranging from celebrities like Wiz Kalifa, Missy Elliot, Justin Bieber, and even Martha Stewart, to hipsters, teens and professionals; they were met with opposition from New York State lawmakers who were quick to declare that motorized hover boards and skateboards are illegal in New York City, as they are considered motor vehicles under the VTL that cannot be registered by the DMV. NY Vehicle & Traffic Law §125. The NYPD announced violators could face hefty fines up to $500. Danielson, Tess, “The NYPD says it's illegal to ride a hoverboard on the streets of New York City,” Business Insider (Nov. 18, 2015).
NYS Assemblyman David Weprin (D-Queens) along with State Senator Jose Peralta had introduced a bill that would exempt hover boards and other electric unicycles from classification as motor vehicles under the VTL. That bill is currently in assembly committee. NY State Senate Bill S6260A.
While these devices are currently illegal to operate on New York City streets, a motorized vehicle becomes a “motor vehicle” subject to registration requirements only if it is operated on the Street. Therefore, it is legal to operate a motor vehicle on private property so long as it never enters a public roadway. You can likely find people whizzing along on hover boards in their homes, offices and on other private property.
The motivation behind the laws banning these devices on City Streets stems from liability to operators, pedestrians and even third parties. Hover boards pose many of the same risks as traditional skateboards, including fall hazards resulting in contusions, lacerations, fractures and head trauma.
Nor is New York City alone in banning the use of these devices on its streets. The MTA has banned hover boards from virtually all modes of public transportation. Major airlines, retailers, NFL teams and the U.S. Postal service have all banned these devices. O'Kane, Sean, “Delta, United, and American Airlines are the latest to ban 'hoverboards',” The Verge (Dec. 11, 2015).
In addition to the risk to operators, pedestrians and third-parties, there is also the potential risk of fire. A Chappaqua, N.Y. man became the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against currently pending in Federal court for the Northern District of Indiana when a hover board he bought his children for Chanukah suddenly burst into flames and damaged the family home. While no injuries were reported, the Chappaqua Fire Department indicated that the home sustained substantial smoke damage. Eng, James, “Man Sues Hoverboard Maker Swagway Over Fire That Damaged His Home,” NBC News (Dec. 16, 2015). In March 2017, the court denied a motion to dismiss by Swagway, the manufacturer of the hover board involved. Brown v. Swagway, N.D. Ind., No 15-CV-588 (Docket No. 78).
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is aware of more than 250 hover board incidents related to fires or overheating since 2015. CPSC estimates there have been 13 burn injuries, three smoke inhalation injuries and more than $4 million in property damage related to hover boards.
So do you go grab your board and go sidewalk surfin' (Sidewalk Surfin' by Jan & Dean, released in 1964) or do you say, see you later boy to that skater boy? (Skater Boy by Avril Lavigne, released in 2002). That may depend on your age, appetite for the rush … and litigation.
Whether skateboard, electric hover board, or hybrid electric skateboard, the use of these small personal vehicles presents a range of legal issues for the general public, operators and practitioners. Stephen King said, “you can't be too careful on a skateboard.” Amen.
Robert D. Lang ([email protected]) is a senior partner of D'Amato & Lynch, where he is head of the Casualty Defense Department. Rachel Nudel ([email protected]) is an associate with the firm. Paralegal Megan Kessig of the firm assisted in this article.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPost-Pandemic Increase in Live Events Prompts Need for Premise Liability Action
7 minute readAre Federal and State Superfund Laws the Best Way to Address Microplastics?
10 minute readGet Your Popcorn Ready: Sanctions Regulations Involving Artwork and Media Content in a Post-'Chevron' World
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'We’re Here to Empower People to Make Good Decisions': Why Compliance Chiefs Must Learn to Think Like a Businessperson
- 2People in the News—Nov. 19, 2024—Pond Lehocky, Duane Morris
- 3Court System's Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission Presents Annual Diversity Awards
- 4Commentary: James Madison, Meet Matt Gaetz
- 5The Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250