.

Legal Updates for Amusements, Sports and Recreation Liability

Florida Legislature Passes the Roller Skating Rink Safety Act

Presented by the Amusements, Sports & Recreation Litigation Practice Group

May 8, 2023

On May 2, 2023, Florida became the 12th state to pass legislation intended to keep roller rink operators in business by promoting safety, risk management and shared responsibility of liability. 

The Roller Skating Rink Safety Act will be codified as 768.395 F.S. It began as Senate Bill 1458 and was adopted by the House, which had its own bill. Senator Clay Yarborough and Representative Susan Plasencia sponsored the original bills after hearing from several constituents and owner/operators of skating rinks across the state. Through the advocacy of the Roller Skating Association (comprised of owners/operators and their supporters) and the International Amusement and Leisure Defense Association (IALDA), the members of the legislature were made aware of the striking need for legislation.

Those needs were demonstrated by the closures and reductions of operating roller skating rinks throughout the state, combined with the avalanche of lawsuits and the crushing economics of litigation—and the inability to retain insurance—all despite industry-wide efforts to maintain and train for a culture of safety.

What was also demonstrated by the constituents and their counsel through phone calls, emails, letters as well as public comment and testimony was the unique value of this industry and why it should be protected. The skate rinks are mostly family-owned and operated. They provide economic opportunities and, to many young people, their “first-job” experience in a family-friendly atmosphere. They are one of the last remaining affordable large family fun activities that involves healthy movement. They are also an affordable venue for schools and other organizations, for fun as well as education through STEM-programmed field trips.

Now, with this legislation in place, Florida, like its 11 predecessor states, clearly delineates the safety responsibilities and duties of the owners and operators as well as the inherent risks assumed by any patron when deciding to lace up a pair of skates and put their body in motion.

More specifically, this legislation balances and clarifies the responsibilities of operators and patrons by defining “Inherent Risk” as those dangers or conditions that are characteristic of, intrinsic to, or an integral part of the activity of roller skating. 

The Act sets forth the conditions under which an operator is not liable to a roller skater or spectator for any damages or personal injury resulting from the inherent risks of roller skating and makes clear that these protections do not apply if there are specified failures of the operator. Duties of the operator include posting responsibilities of roller skaters and spectators in at least three areas on the premises, having at least one supervisor or manager on duty for every 200 skaters, and maintaining the skating surface in a reasonably safe condition which includes cleaning and inspecting the skating surface before each skating session.

Likewise, duties of the skater include maintaining reasonable control of speed and direction, and heeding all the posted signs and warnings, maintaining awareness, knowing the range of their own ability, and refraining from acting in a manner that may contribute to their own or others injury.

With this legislation in place, lawsuits may decrease, but will still be viable if they have good cause such as if there is evidence of a failure of the operator to take the actions described in subsection (5). However, failure of a roller skater to comply with paragraph (6) (b) also now legislatively constitutes negligence. 

Therefore, roller rink operators can now claim defenses as to the skater’s negligence, and their own duties are legislatively determined. By making the duties of each clear, the life span, cost, and toll of lawsuits are lessened, allowing a viable defense to be raised at an insurable cost. 

This legislation, like the industry itself and its long-term advocates, is focused on safety. There are some inherent risks that no amount of reasonable care can prevent. The risk of losing balance while skating cannot be eliminated without taking away the fun and the freedom of movement inherent to the sport. However, this legislation also sets out the duties of the rink operators. With clear language articulating what can reasonably be done to promote less risk and more safety, and what no amount of action can prevent, the shared responsibility of safety is fairly divided providing better outcomes for all involved. 



 

 

Legal Update for Amusements Sports & Recreation Litigation, May 8, 2023, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. 
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

 

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Delaware Superior Court Clarifies Pleading Standard for Legal Malpractice Claims

In the matter of Edelstein v. Kirschner, No. N25C-09-018 FJJ, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 45, at *1 (Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2026), the plaintiff law firm sued its former client for unpaid legal fees in the amount of $4,399.35. The former client asserted a counterclaim alleging legal malpractice. More, specifically, the former client claimed that his lawyer committed malpractice be recommending that he settle an underlying lawsuit by entering into a stipulated judgment for an excessive amount with interest that was accruing at “an outlandish” interest rate. The law firm moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that its former client had not alleged facts reflecting that he could prove the case within the case. That is, facts reflecting that his attorneys caused him to lose the underlying case. The Superior Court held that while a legal malpractice plaintiff in cases arising from underlying litigation must prove the case within the case to survive a summary judgment motion, he does not need to plead facts reflecting as much in order to survive a motion to dismiss. While this case addresses the pleading requirements of a legal malpractice case in Delaware, it also serves as reminder that chasing unpaid legal fees from a former client can often give rise to a legal malpractice counterclaim. Attorneys seeking to collect unpaid legal fees should ensure that the fees they seek are for a significant amount, which would be recoverable if a judgment is obtained. Otherwise, the effort could backfire.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.