Nevada Supreme Court Declines to Extend Assumption of Risk Doctrine used in Sporting Venues

Recently, the Nevada Supreme Court declined to extend the “primary assumption of the risk” doctrine, used in sporting context, to injuries suffered by an invitee at the Palms Casino Sports Book who was injured when a promotional model was tossing out free souvenirs. Plaintiff Enrique Rodriquez suffered a knee injury when another patron at the Palms Sportsbook dove for a souvenir being tossed by a promotional model. See, FCH1, LLC v. Rodriquez, 326 P.3d 440 (NEV 2014). Palms sought a finding from the District Court that it owed no duty as a matter of law to Rodriquez.

A landowner owes entrants a duty to exercise reasonable care. See, Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp, 291 P3d. 152 (NEV 2012). However, there is a long standing tradition of case law that limits the duty owed by stadium owners and operators to game attendees where the risk associated with attendance cannot be eliminated without altering the fundament nature of the activity. See, Turner v. Mandaly Sports Entm’t L.L.C., 124 Nev. 216, at 219 (NEV 2008). Spectators at live sporting events assume the risks involved with game itself including batted balls, wildly thrown balls, and souvenirs being thrown into the stands.

Previously, the California Supreme Court had approved its own appellate court’s extension of the limited duty doctrine where a plaintiff brought suit for injuries sustained when he tripped and fell into the remnants of the Burning Man effigy and was burned. See, Nalwa v. Cedar Fair (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148 citing Beninati v. Black Rock City, L.L.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 650. The Palms Sportsbook sought to rely on the body of law discussed in Turner and Nalwa to preclude Mr. Rodriquez’s suit because tossing souvenirs at sporting events and other entertainment venues is a very common and well accepted activity. The Court drew a distinction between a spectator watching a live game at a bar and a spectator in the stands at the same event. Rodriquez was watching Monday Night Football at the Palms Sportbook.

The Nevada Supreme Court declined to extend a limited duty exception to the Palms Sportsbook, because Mr. Rodriquez was simply watching a sporting event at a bar and was injured by a third party and not a piece of sporting equipment involved in the game itself. The Rodriquez case was ultimately revised and remanded on expert witness errors by the trial court.