All situation described below are completely hypothetical.
For the sake of this discussion, this is happening in the US.
If a company has a sports field that is used by non-employees, what liabilities does the field owner face?
A local company here has a sports field that has been used for soccer for years. Playing soccer (or any sport) carries risks so it isn’t as if non-employees who come out to play are dealing with a situation where they shouldn’t have realized there are risks. If a player gets hurt during the normal course of action during a soccer game on that field, is the company liable?
I know that laws vary state to state, so this is a far more broad question rather than a specific applicability of specific state/local laws. I’m just wondering if, in general, this is something a company in the US would expect to lose if an injury did happen and they were sued.
Not a law-talking guy, but negligence torts wouldn’t be waived, and you can add in a heaping dose of “duty of care” and “attractive nuisance”.
If a player got hurt as part of the normal game? Probably no liability, although they may threaten a suit to make a small payout more attractive to the field owner than fighting.
On the other hand, if they fell because the field hadn’t been specially mowed, or tripped over some equipment that hadn’t been cleared away, the field owner may well be liable if they had an “attractive nuisance” - a vacant football field - that they didn’t take steps to tell people was for approved use only.
The principle of an attractive nuisance is one that would apply to possibly create liability where a child was the injured party. I’m not aware that it ever applies to an adult. We expect an adult to have the capacity to determine for himself that a dangerous condition exists where there’s something like equipment strewn about.
The general rule is you don’t have any duty to somebody who’s trespassing on your land if you aren’t aware of it. If you are aware of it, you have a duty to the extent that you have to either warn them or remedy any conditions that pose a risk of serious bodily harm and which the trespassers are unlikely to be able to discover for themselves.
So, ordinary soccer field, ordinary injury? There shouldn’t be any liability. I’d expect the company to say 1. we didn’t even know they were there, 2. we certainly didn’t authorize them to be there, 3. we had no duty to protect them against anything, 4. even if we had any duty toward them, we didn’t breach any duty by failing to warn them that ordinary soccer gameplay can result in injury, because a reasonable person already knows that. And they could win on any of 'em.
If the company has an “attractive nuisance” - let’s say a nice set of concrete stairs with railings just begging to be skateboarded down - then they might get sued. If they knew kids were doing something inherently dangerous, and did nothing to stop it, they they assume some of the blame. This is part of the problem - if the obvious use(s) are significantly risky, like a skateboard park or a swimming pool, then the owner should be minimizing those risks (Supervise, require helmets, have a lifeguard and lock pool after hours, etc.)
If the soccer field were somehow deficient then they would be blamable (at least, a lawyer would try to assign them blame). It might be that the sprinklers had just been on and the wet grass and mud made the field a slipping hazard - you should not let kids run full tilt on it. Perhaps the field butted onto a road and there’s a risk someone younger and less cautious would chase a ball into traffic. Perhaps there are ruts on the field, making a tripping hazard.
However, soccer is not an inherenly risky sport like skydiving or obstacle skateboarding (we hope). You can’t sue the owner if you trip over your own shoelaces on his sidewalk (we hope) and you can’t sue the owner if you fall palying a non-conact sport like soccer (we hope).
the risk is, of course, that the person suing will find some stretched excuse to demonstrate negilgence. Even if you did nothing wrong, simply defending yourself in court could cost a small fortune, and some lawyers rely on this to wring a small out-of-court settlement from the deep-pockets defendant.
This falls under the heading of “Premises liability”, just as slipping and falling in a mercantile establishment.
The case law controls as to liability, and either the express or implied contract of use, “Assumption of risk” for one example.
“Generally” such damages mustbe proven by some type of Tortious conduct on the owner/agent’s part, such as Negligence of some degree/type.
I understand that many companies would try to avoid a lawsuit, even if they would win, simply due to the cost of defending themselves.
I think I understand the idea a little better now on the risks entailed in letting outside players onto a field like that. It just seems crazy to me that the only place available to play these types of things anymore effectively becomes city parks. Those would seem to be the only locations with enough immunity to litigation (although it obviously still isn’t 100%).
Sometimes, the Insurance carrier seeks a settlement for the Plaintiff, by and through Defendant’s Counsel, to settle for a lesser amount then asked for, as litigation is expensive, yes.
Most states have “recreational use” statutes where if a landowner lets another use his land for a recreational purpose, with no admission charge, his only duty is to warn of known dangers.
So it is even more restrictive than I said. 19-25-4 says that you cannot intentionally harm someone or be “willful, wanton, and reckless” towards them. Basically no alligator-filled moats.
One of the classic lawsuits I recall was a woman who slipped in a supermarket on a mushed grape or two by the produce section - likely dropped by another customer. The argument was the store was negligent for not cleaning it up.
This points to another source of liability - you let strange people wander at will on your property, you have no way of knowing what obstacles or hazards (broken bottles, boards with nails, used needles) they may have left as a surprise for subsequent visitors. Try proving the problem was not there last night when you did the clean-up… Plus, if you*** are*** cleaning, you know the risk of garbage is there and did nothing to warn or stop others.
I think you overstate the nature of the problem. Sure there are no shortage of sleazy lawyers who will file anything and sadly many insurance companies will pay to make them go away, but the law generally makes sense.
At common law, and still in most states, entrants to land are classified in three categories and landowners owe different duties:
invitees—business visitors. A landowner owes a duty of due care.
licensees–personal visitors on the premises at no charge for social purposes—a duty to warn against known hazards
3)trespassers—a landowner only has a duty to refrain from willful, wanton, and reckless conduct (no bamboo pit traps)*
*with some odd-ball exceptions doctrines like attractive nuisance, and known trespassers.
So generally if you allow people on your property for no money, you are clear unless you forget to tell them about the quicksand. Trespassers are right out.
But if you have a business, you owe customers a duty of care including cleaning grapes off of the supermarket floor. You know that customers will be walking there, and that grapes are hard to spot and can cause a slip and fall. That’s not to say that a store is strictly liable for a grape that fell 4 seconds ago, but it’s not outrageous to say that they need to keep an eye out for them. In fact, these type of suits are very common.
The point is, once you know your property attracts broken beer bottles and other hazards, you know you have a problem. if you fail to clean up, you are allowing the problem to persist. No different than not cleaning up the other customers’ spilled grapes.
Of course, yes, your soccer-playing hooligans are trespassing, as were the beer-bottle tossing yahoos who were there before them. But just like an ice patch or a tree ready to fall on someone, you have allowed a hazard to exist. The only distinction is that as trespassers rather than customer invitees, you have a lower duty of care - not a non-existent one. How is a field that looks like a soccer field, but strewn with broken glass and used needles, NOT willful, wanton and reckless? After the first time you see a bottle or did a previous cleanup, leaving any further garbage around is "willful’ and probably “wanton”.
Of course, if the OP’s slip and fall had nothing to do with such obstacles, they probably would not win the case.