Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and D were participating in an adult non-checking ice hockey league game. P was playing the position of right-wing and in a corner of the ice rink and playing the puck when he was, without provocation or warning, checked by the D into the boards of the ice hockey rink. P suffered serious injuries that include, but are not limited to the following: a. comminuted femur fracture; b. stiff knee; c. scarring; d. multiple surgeries requiring the placement of screws and other hardware into the leg; and e. infection. P's medical bills are approximately $35,000.00. P sued D. P testified that D slew-footed him by D jamming D's skate into P's skate. D was seriously injured and was transported from the hockey rink to the hospital by ambulance. P's hockey expert Patrick Quinn testified that the action is called 'slew-foot.' Quinn explained slew footing is not accepted at the professional level and definitely not expected in a no-contact league. Quinn continued, 'It's a very deliberate action.' Quinn explained, 'D knows the rules. He knows how the game is played. He knows what contact is. And if he, indeed, slew-footed this guy, that was intentional.' D had been playing hockey since he was four years old. D was eighteen years old at the time of the incident. D testified nonchecking means 'no hitting . . . no . . . slamming your body into another person to knock them over and off the puck.' D explained slew footing would be in violation of league rules. D did not recall any bodily contact with P. D explained he did, attempt to lift P's hockey stick, and take the puck from underneath. D moved for summary judgment. It was granted and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.