## Facts

- Helene Smollett and her husband attended a fundraiser at a roller-skating rink operated by Skayting Development Corporation in the Virgin Islands.
- The skating surface was polyurethane and elevated about three to five inches above a surrounding carpeted area.
- The rink had no guardrails; the owner told the Smolletts the design was used at newer rinks as a safety measure.
- Signs posted around the rink stated “skate at your own risk.”
- Smollett, age thirty-three, was an experienced skater who had skated more than fifty times, though not in the prior two years, and she declined an offered skating lesson.
- Smollett skated for about ninety minutes without incident; the rink was not overcrowded (about fifty to one hundred skaters) and had skateguards present.
- Many skaters were children and inexperienced.
- On her final lap, a child skating in front of Smollett fell; to avoid the child and another skater, Smollett swerved right onto the carpeted area, fell, and broke her left wrist.
- The wrist injury required surgery on the day of the accident and again about a year later.
- Smollett sued for negligence in the rink’s design and operation; Skayting asserted assumption of risk as a defense.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Virgin Islands law, Smollett assumed the risk as a matter of law, negating Skayting’s duty and requiring judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
2. Whether Virgin Islands comparative negligence limits assumption of risk to fault apportionment or allows it to operate as a complete bar when it negates duty.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JNOV and directed entry of judgment for Skayting.
- The court held the evidence established Smollett’s voluntary and knowing encounter with the relevant risks, so no reasonable jury could find she did not assume the risk.
- The court treated assumption of risk as a no-duty doctrine that, on these facts, barred recovery notwithstanding the jury’s comparative fault allocation.

## Legal Principles

- JNOV is proper when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the verdict winner, there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
- Under Virgin Islands law, assumption of risk may function as a no-duty doctrine: when a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily confronts a risk, the defendant owes no duty with respect to that risk.
- A plaintiff’s actual knowledge and voluntary acceptance may be inferred from experience, observation of the conditions, and continued participation despite awareness of the danger.
- Comparative negligence does not necessarily eliminate assumption of risk as a complete defense when the plaintiff’s conduct negates the defendant’s duty rather than merely reflecting unreasonable conduct to be compared.

## Conclusion

Because Smollett was an experienced skater who knew of the rink’s conditions and the likelihood of falls by other skaters yet chose to skate, the court concluded she assumed the risk that materialized and Skayting owed no duty as to that risk, requiring judgment for the defendant despite the jury’s comparative negligence verdict.


Smollett v. Skayting Dev. Corp., 793 F.2d 547 (3d Cir. 1986)