▲蘇狀師談「自承風險」原則

蘇思鴻 律師
發表時間:2019/12/14 18:56 1581 次瀏覽

assumption of risk 自承風險
風險承擔(assumption of risk、自承風險)屬於英美侵權中的一種抗辯,如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險,則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權(故意侵權沒有適用)。
 

Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan.
參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而,球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。

Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中

In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park.
2015年,一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害,進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用,同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。

Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work?
當談到觀眾受傷,米勒棒球場(密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場)並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場,一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡,離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事理的賽車在比賽中系極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中,誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失?

The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸,答案是你(亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害)

“Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你賽票

Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries.

It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them.

The exception:

While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example:

  • If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds.
     
  • In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated.

Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field.

We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.  

 

蘇思鴻 律師

  • 聯絡電話: 0920235793
  • 執業年資: 5年以上
  • 蘇律師事務所
  • 竹東武功堂