Summary
Christopher Range was injured after stepping into a hole while playing soccer at the Abbott Sports Complex and sued the facility-related entities and soccer association for premises liability. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that evidence concerning the hole's size, appearance, and surrounding grass supported a reasonable inference that it existed before the match, creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding constructive notice. The court reversed the summary judgments and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants had constructive knowledge of the alleged hole in the soccer field.
- Whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment in Range's premises-liability action.
Holdings
- Yes. Range's description of the hole, including its apparent burrowing-animal origin, surrounding grass, and lack of fresh or loose dirt, supported a reasonable inference that the hole existed before the soccer match and had been present long enough to support an issue concerning the defendants' constructive knowledge.
- No. The defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because the evidence, viewed favorably to Range, created a genuine issue of material fact concerning constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition.
- A land possessor may be liable for injury caused by a condition on the land when the possessor created the condition, knew of it, or should have discovered it through reasonable care; recognized an unreasonable risk of harm; should have expected the lawful visitor would not discover or protect against the danger; failed to use reasonable care; and the condition proximately caused the plaintiff's damages.
Key quotations
“A possessor of land is subject to liability for injury caused to a lawful visitor by a condition on the land if (1) the possessor defendant either created the condition, knew of the condition, or by the exercise of reasonable care would have discovered the condition; (2) the defendant should have realized the condition involved an unreasonable risk of harm to the lawful visitor; (3) the defendant should have expected that a lawful visitor such as the plaintiff either (a) would not discover or realize the danger or (b) would fail to protect himself or herself against the danger; (4) the defendant failed to use reasonable care to protect the lawful visitor against the danger; and (5) the condition was a proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff.” ([4])
“These facts support a reasonable inference, not mere speculation, that the hole existed prior to the start of the soccer match.” ([5,6])
“Therefore, giving Range the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence regarding the existence of the hole, we conclude that a genuine issue of material fact does exist as to whether the appellees had constructive knowledge of the hole.” ([5,6])
Factual background
Christopher Range injured his right knee during a soccer match at the Abbott Sports Complex when he stepped into or encountered a hole in the athletic field. He described the hole as approximately 4 to 5 inches wide, with grass growing around it but not inside it, and appearing to have been made by a small burrowing animal. Range and the referees did not observe the hole before the match, and Range did not know how long it had existed. The trial court nevertheless concluded that Range had not produced evidence from which the duration of the hole's existence, and therefore the defendants' constructive knowledge, could reasonably be inferred.
Procedural history
Christopher Range sued the Abbott Sports Complex, the Abbott Foundation, the Capital Sports Foundation, and the Lincoln Adult Soccer Association after injuring his knee during a soccer match. The Lancaster County District Court concluded that Range had not presented evidence establishing that the defendants knew or should have known of the alleged hole in the field and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The cause was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.