This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
Perhaps, it makes good sense for an ice rink to have a safety training program for employees, as well as an emergency plan, and to disseminate information by way of a notice posted or printed on a handout regarding the location and availability of emergency equipment, including an AED.


Duty to Disseminate Information


In a recent wrongful death lawsuit* involving an AED and an ice rink in California, the California Court of Appeals considered the question of the legal duty of the ice rink facility


“to provide information and notice to invitees — including the participants, officials, coaches and members of organizations that defendants regularly invited to participate in athletic events organized and sponsored by defendants on their premises — as to the existence, availability, location and purpose of all medical emergency response equipment, including AED units, and to effectively establish, disseminate and set into action a medical emergency response plan in the event of an emergency.” After an extensive review of common law, California statutory law and other legal precedents, the court ruled that “based on such precedents” the court “cannot find a legal duty in the circumstances here sufficient to support tort liability on the part of the ice rink facility.” Te decision was welcome news to the ice rink. Briefly stated, the facts are that on


February 5, 2004, a 17-year-old hockey player, was participating in a tournament game at the rink. During the game, the player experienced a sudden cardiac arrest and collapsed on the ice. Some individuals applied CPR, but the player died. No one was aware that an AED was available on the wall where the player had collapsed. Hence, it was not used. Te player’s parents brought a wrongful death action against the business entities that operated the ice rink. Te parents contended that


ISI EDGE SPRING 2016


the facility owners and operators had a duty to provide information and notice regarding the AED and that they had breached that duty. As noted above, the California Court


of Appeals ruled in favor of the ice rink, holding that the rink had no such duty. It is not the intent of this article to review all of the legal issues and the precedents that were addressed by the court. Of particular note, however, is a strong dissent by one of the judges. He stated that his analysis focused “on the failure of the ice rink facility to have an emergency plan to disseminate information concerning the location and availability of whatever emergency equipment may have been present at the ice rink (whether an AED or other equipment) in the face of high- risk activity resulting in injury.” It must be kept in mind that this case


involved a California State Court decision. Te result reached in that case may or may not be the same as the result that might be reached in another state court jurisdiction.


Emergency Plan


Te purpose of this article is to address the opinion of the dissenting judge regarding dissemination of information pertaining to “emergency equipment.” In essence, the judge concluded that the ice rink had a duty to disseminate such information. Perhaps, it makes good sense for an ice


rink to have a safety training program for employees as well as an emergency plan and to disseminate information by way of a notice posted or printed on a handout regarding the location and availability of emergency equipment, including an AED. Many businesses have adopted an


Injury Prevention Program, commonly referred to as an IPP. In most instances the IPP includes availability and location of emergency equipment. Why not do something similar in your rink? After all, safety in the ice rink industry is certainly of major consideration. Te availability and location of emergency equipment in an ice rink is a safety factor that a rink should want to share with those who use or visit its facility, including employees of the rink.


*California Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, case No. H029936, filed 5/24/07.


Tom Morton is the senior member of the law firm of Morton, Morton & Associates in Zebulon, Ga. He is a longtime member of ISI and serves on the NEISMA Board of


Directors. ISI recently presented him with its Albert E. Tyldesley Excellence in Safety Award. He has authored numerous articles pertaining to safety in the ice rink industry.


AED RESOURCES


For more information on AEDs and state laws pertaining to them, please visit cpr.heart.org and redcross.org.


7


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36