## Facts

- Robert Archibald played in an adult recreational “no-checking” ice hockey league where body checking was prohibited by league rules.
- During play along the boards, Cody Kemble checked Archibald into the boards, causing Archibald’s body to strike the rink wall.
- Discovery evidence described the contact as a “slew-foot,” involving Kemble’s skate jamming into Archibald’s skate, characterized as deliberate and dangerous.
- Archibald suffered a comminuted femur fracture and underwent multiple surgeries involving implanted hardware, complications, and possible lasting impairment.
- Robert Archibald and his wife, Krista Archibald, sued Kemble for negligence and loss of consortium.

## Issues

1. What standard of care governs a participant’s tort liability to a coparticipant for injuries arising from play in an organized recreational sport: negligence or recklessness?
2. If recklessness is the governing standard, must a plaintiff expressly plead “recklessness” to proceed?
3. Whether the record contained sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that Kemble acted recklessly, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the applicable standard of care for coparticipant injuries in this recreational hockey context is recklessness, not ordinary negligence.
- The court ruled the Archibalds were not required to expressly plead “recklessness” where the complaint’s factual allegations could support reckless conduct.
- The court concluded the summary-judgment record contained evidence from which a jury could find recklessness, including testimony characterizing the act as a deliberate “slew-foot” and evidence of rule awareness.
- The court vacated the order granting summary judgment to Kemble and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- In organized athletic competition, a participant is generally liable to another participant for injuries only if the defendant’s conduct is reckless or intentional; ordinary negligence is insufficient.
- Violation of sport or league rules does not, by itself, establish liability; it may be relevant to whether conduct reflects conscious disregard of a substantial risk.
- Pleadings are construed liberally; a claim may proceed on a recklessness theory without the plaintiff expressly labeling it “recklessness,” so long as the factual averments support that theory.
- At summary judgment, where evidence permits a reasonable inference of conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm, recklessness is for the factfinder.

## Conclusion

The court applied a recklessness standard to coparticipant claims in recreational hockey, held that factual allegations framed as negligence could still support recklessness, and found the evidence sufficient to require a jury determination rather than summary judgment.


Archibald v. Kemble, 971 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009)