PITTSBURGH - The organizer of youth hockey tournaments has defeated a lawsuit brought by a player injured at his hotel by a joke "Duck Crossing" sign.
Though Hockey Time Productions required participants and their families to stay at hotels it approved, premises liability can't be extended to it, Pittsburgh federal judge Robert Colville wrote March 14 in a lawsuit brought by a minor plaintiff known as E.Z. and his parents.
"Imposing such a duty would be extremely burdensome and expand premises liability to an entity essentially unaffiliated with the hotel and with no control over the hotel or the premises on which the hotel is located," Colville wrote.
"Imposing such a duty... is illogical, and, accordingly, unwarranted."
E.Z. and his family stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in Harmarville in October 2022. Hockey Town required those who lived more than 75 miles from the arena hosting a tournament to stay at a hotel it included on an approved list.
Participants paid a tournament rate and reserved rooms through Hockey Time. The lawsuit says Hockey Time failed to inspect these hotels to ensure their safety.
What was unsafe at the Holiday Inn Express, the plaintiffs said, was a "Slow Duck Crossing" sign in a strip of grass in a heavily traveled area of the hotel. The sign was apparently a joke because no ducks were in the area.
But it was also dangerous, plaintiffs said, considering it was made of metal, had sharp edges and was attached to a metal pole. It was nearly five feat tall and had no illumination device so it could be seen at night.
E.Z. ran into the sign and was injured. He sued Hockey Time, plus the owners and operators of the hotel.
Colville said E.Z.s theory of liability was "interesting" but "difficult to discern." It was sued for general negligence for an alleged failure to ensure its hockey tournament requirements were safe.
The lawsuit said Hockey Time failed to visit the hotel, inspect it and assess its safety.
"The complaint speaks to a duty owed by a business owner to a business invitee, not an independent third party with no control over the property," Colville wrote.
"(T)he Court agrees with Hockey Time that what Plaintiffs have attempted to accomplish by way of their negligence claim against Hockey Time is to expand premises liability to an entity that has no actual control over the hotel or the property on which the hotel is located."
Putting Hockey Time to the standard proposed by the lawsuit would require it to inspect its kitchen and walk every hallway and sidewalk searching for tripping hazards, Colville wrote.
"Such a duty might also require more than one visit to allow for inspection of daytime and nighttime safety issues," he added.
"As a practical matter, it is very unlikely that any hotel or business would even allow the access that would be required under the duty asserted by Plaintiffs to an entity such as Hockey Time."