<strong><em>Pink v. Rome Youth Hockey Ass'n, Inc.</em>, 27 N.Y.3d 995 (2016)</em></strong></p>
A premises owner or lessee’s duty to control the conduct of third persons on their property and prevent foreseeable criminal acts does not extend to unforeseeable assaults, even with the existence of a “zero tolerance” policy.
<strong>Summary</strong></p>
Raymond Pink was injured in an assault following a youth hockey game. Pink sued the Rome Youth Hockey Association, alleging negligence for failing to prevent the assault. The New York Court of Appeals held that the hockey association was not liable because the assault was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the events at the game. The court emphasized that while premises owners have a duty to protect against foreseeable criminal conduct, this duty is not triggered when the specific criminal act is not reasonably predictable based on prior experience or the specific circumstances of the situation. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant.
<strong>Facts</strong></p>
The Rome Youth Hockey Association (defendant) rented an arena for a youth hockey tournament. During a game, there were on-ice fights and verbal altercations among spectators. After the game ended, a fight broke out among spectators, and Matthew Ricci struck Raymond Pink, causing a head injury. Ricci pleaded guilty to assault. Pink sued the hockey association, alleging the association was negligent in failing to enforce USA Hockey’s “Zero Tolerance” policy and prevent the assault. The policy required officials to remove spectators using vulgar language or threatening physical violence.
The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, granting summary judgment in favor of the Whitestown Youth Hockey Association (WYHA). The Appellate Division affirmed the decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted the defendant leave to appeal, certifying the question of whether the denial of summary judgment was proper. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Whether the Rome Youth Hockey Association owed a duty to protect Pink from the assault that occurred after the hockey game.
Yes, because the criminal assault on Pink was not a reasonably foreseeable result of any failure to take preventive measures.
The court began by restating the established rule that landowners have a duty to control the conduct of third persons on their premises when they can control such persons and are aware of the need for such control. This includes minimizing foreseeable dangers, including foreseeable criminal conduct. However, the court emphasized that “foreseeability and duty are not identical concepts.” Foreseeability determines the scope of the duty once the duty is found to exist. The scope of the duty is “limited to risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable.” In this case, the court found that the assault was not reasonably foreseeable because there was no history of similar incidents, and the actions of the fans, though inappropriate, did not create a risk that failure to eject any specific spectator would lead to a criminal assault. The court also noted that violating an organization’s internal rules is not negligence in itself and that the organization’s policy did not create an awareness of the likelihood of the criminal assault. As the court stated: “Defendant was entitled to summary judgment. On this record, the criminal assault on plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable result of any failure to take preventive measures.”
This case emphasizes that premises liability for criminal acts requires a showing of reasonable foreseeability. Attorneys should focus on demonstrating that a particular criminal act was predictable based on past experience or specific circumstances. A premises owner’s internal policies, like the “zero tolerance” policy here, may be relevant but are not dispositive in establishing the scope of duty. A premises owner’s mere awareness of general incidents nationwide does not establish foreseeability. Further, the case reinforces that not every injury is compensable, and courts must consider the limits of the duty to prevent harm, especially where criminal acts are involved. This decision suggests that premises owners should not be held liable for unforeseeable violent acts, even when they have implemented safety measures. Subsequent cases will likely look to this decision for the definition of foreseeability in similar circumstances.