Angela Carter
Case: Savino v. Robertson Northbrook Men’s Summer League (1995)
Facts:
Mr. Savino is the plaintiff in this case. He alleges that the defendant fired the hockey puck that
struck him in the eye causing him to lose 80% of his eye site. This was due in part of the
negligent of the defendant on the ice rink prior to bringing the official game. Savino states that
defendant Robertson did not follow protocols and the regulation set forth by the Northbrook
League by taking shot without notifying all on the ice with no goalie in place. All took place
during what is called warmups prior to game play. Savino submitted an affidavit from a former
friend of 15 years name Thomas Czarnick states that in amateur play it is standard for leagues to
wait until there is a goalie present. Czarnick went on to say he had no knowledge of the rules
when it game to Northbrook Hockey and had no first hand of the incident between Savion and
Robertson.
Issues:
Question looking at this case is was it truly the defendant responsibility to inform all participants
who were on the ice floor? Was it the plaintiff responsibility to make sure he had all equipment
on prior to stepping on the rink? Did plaintiff accept the risks that comes with playing a contact
sport with the assumption that one could get physically harmed?
Holdings:
After the case was heard in court it was the court’s decision that the plaintiff Savino failed to
prove that Mr. Robertson behavior was a willful conduct. The court stated there was no evidence
to show that Mr. Robertson conduct was willful, warranted or reckless to disregard safety.
Rational:
In the case the decision was made that the plaintiff should have been considered as a participant
because he was on the ice rink at the time of the incident because he was not wearing proper
safety gear that is required to play hockey. Hockey is a contact sport and is risky sport that Mr.
Savino should have to all necessary precautions to safeguard himself by always having on
protective wear while on the ice whether it is in game play or during warm ups (Savino v.
Robertson, 1995). It was also determined that no rule that states players are only allowed to shoot
when there is a goalie is present. It was stated that the team routinely took practice shots at open
nets which means the plaintiff had already been made aware that anything could happen during
this time and you are taking the risks.
Reference:
Savino v. Robertson, 652 N.E. 2d 1240 811 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)
