Jamie L. Lenzi, Esq., a partner in the firm’s Pittsburgh office and a member of the Sports & Recreation Liability Team, recently obtained judgment on the pleadings for the firm’s client, a hockey tournament organizer, in a negligence case arguing the tried-and-true concept of no duty, no negligence.

In E.Z. Zaker v. JSKLD Hospitality Enterprise, LLC, No. 2023-CV-835-RJC (W.D. Pa. March 14, 2025, Colville J.), the federal district court granted judgment in favor of the hockey organizer finding it owed no duty as a matter of law to protect a hockey participant who had an unfortunate (but not life threatening) run-in with a “Slow Duck Crossing” sign on the premises outside of a hotel where he was staying during the tournament.

The firm’s client organizes hockey tournaments throughout the country for youth and adults and has an approved list of hotels where they are required to stay near the tournament location.  The plaintiffs sued the hotel entities that owned and operated hotel under a theory of premises liability alleging the Slow Duck Crossing sign was a “gag” and a dangerous condition because it was too low and not properly illuminated.  They sued the hockey organizer on grounds that it has a general duty to vet the premises because it required tournament participants to stay at the hotel.

The district court found the claim against the hockey tournament organizer a “little bit difficult to discern.”  While plaintiffs argued “general” negligence, they alleged the defendant had an affirmative duty to inspect the hotel, including the outdoor premises to determine whether it was safe and up to industry standards.  The district court quoted from Attorney Lenzi’s brief on the impracticality of imposing such a duty:

• The consequences of imposing a duty upon a tournament organizer are far reaching and improperly burdensome.  Under Plaintiff’s theory, [defendant] would be required to physically inspect the inside of the hotel, the lobby, the restaurants, and the rooms as well as the grounds outside, study industry standards and walk the property with a measuring tape to check whether the height and material of fixtures, personality, obstacles, and signage are in good order and properly illuminated. 

The district court found the hotel defendants already owed plaintiffs the highest duty of care and rejected the attempt to expand liability to an entity that had no connection to the premises.  It agreed with the defense that under the Althaus factors there is no social utility or benefit to making the hockey tournament organizer responsible for inspecting the property and that imposing a duty would improperly shift the burden from the actual owner or possessor of the premises.

What it means for you

There is a logical line that is not crossed in negligence cases under the concept of duty.  No duty, no negligence, no liability.  As litigants attempt to stretch the lines of duty beyond reasonable limits, when it is pointed out with logic and reason in a dispositive motion, courts have latitude to decide early in the case that no liability exists, as a matter of law.

If you have any questions about this case, please contact Jamie Lenzi, Esq. at jlenzi@c-wlaw.com or (412) 563-2500.