## Facts

- Jill Ritchie-Gamester attended an “open skating” session at the Berkley Ice Arena, where skaters of varying skill used the ice at the same time.
- Halley Mann, a 12-year-old skater, was also participating in the open skating session.
- Ritchie-Gamester alleged Mann skated backward in a careless manner, failed to keep a proper lookout, and collided with her.
- The collision knocked Ritchie-Gamester down and caused a serious knee injury.
- Mann testified she did look behind her while skating backward.
- Ritchie-Gamester sued Mann, the City of Berkley (the rink owner), and a rink employee.
- The City and the employee were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation, leaving the claim against Mann as the relevant claim on appeal.
- Mann moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that contact between skaters is a foreseeable incident of open-session skating.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for Mann, reasoning that open ice skating involves inherent risks and Mann’s conduct was not contrary to skating rules.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, applying ordinary negligence principles and finding a triable question on negligence.
- In the Michigan Supreme Court, Mann conceded evidence could support negligence but argued liability required recklessness; Ritchie-Gamester argued for negligence but conceded Mann was not reckless.

## Issues

1. What duty of care do coparticipants in a recreational activity owe one another: ordinary care (negligence) or only a duty to refrain from reckless conduct?
2. Under the correct standard, could the plaintiff establish a breach sufficient to avoid summary disposition where the plaintiff conceded the conduct was not reckless?

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for Mann.
- The Court held that coparticipants in recreational activities owe each other only a duty not to act recklessly.
- Because the plaintiff conceded Mann’s conduct did not rise to recklessness, the plaintiff could not prove breach of duty as a matter of law.
- Applying the summary disposition standard (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party), the Court concluded the alleged conduct amounted, at most, to ordinary negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Coparticipants in recreational activities owe one another a duty to refrain from reckless misconduct, not a duty of ordinary care.
- Ordinary mishaps, misjudgments, and incidental contact that are foreseeable in recreational activities generally do not support tort liability between participants absent reckless conduct.
- The recklessness standard reflects that participants voluntarily accept common risks associated with recreational activity and limits liability to conduct that constitutes a serious departure from ordinary participation.
- Where the plaintiff cannot produce evidence supporting recklessness (or concedes its absence), summary disposition is appropriate because no reasonable factfinder could find a breach of the applicable duty.

## Conclusion

Michigan applies a recklessness standard to injuries between participants in recreational activities, limiting liability to reckless conduct and foreclosing recovery for ordinary negligence arising from foreseeable incidents of the activity; because the plaintiff conceded no recklessness, judgment for the defendant coparticipant was reinstated.


Ritchie-Gamester v. City of Berkley, 461 Mich. 73, 597 N.W.2d 517 (Mich. 1999)