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

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

P was injured during an ice hockey game between his team, the New England Renegades and Team Kanaly. Both teams were in the Midget Major division for high school players aged seventeen to nineteen years old - a division where checking was allowed. Like P, Lever (D) was seventeen years old. Both were approximately five feet and eight inches in height, with Lever (D) weighing between 165 and 170 pounds and P between 150 and 160 pounds. Each player had played ice hockey for over a decade at the time of the incident, was familiar with the rules of hockey, and understood that physical contact (including penalties therefore) was an inherent aspect of the game. Daniel J. Mahoney, Sr. (D), and Steven M. Lerner (D) were the referees for the game. Mahoney (D) was refereeing his eighth game of the day, and Lerner (D) was refereeing his fifth game of the day. They called eight penalties during the course of the game in question - five against the Renegades and three against Team Kanaly. Both teams engaged in verbal jousting, which referee Mahoney (D) described as “pretty typical for this age group.” The referees cautioned both coaches to instruct their players to stop the taunting, and both coaches did so. The referees were unbiased in their officiating; however, some Renegades team spectators believed that the referees did not control the game and failed to call some rule violations. There was no evidence as to which particular calls were missed, and nothing tying Lever (D) or P to any missed call. After two periods, Team Kanaly led by a score of four to three. In the third and final period, Team Kanaly pulled ahead eight to three. With two minutes left on the clock, P received the puck at approximately mid-rink, near the boards; he turned and skated toward Team Kanaly's goal in possession of the puck. Lever (D), who was near the Renegades' goal, skated towards P at a “[h]igh rated speed” without slowing down. Lever (D) checked P hard, propelling P into the boards. A parent of a Renegades player (who watched the game from the stands near center ice) described the hit as a “smash” and a “tremendous hit” with Lever hitting Borella with his “whole front side.” The parent opined that the hit was a “charge” in violation of the rules of hockey. Another Renegades parent, who was also in the stands, described that Lever's shoulder hit Borella's back; she testified that she would have called a “hitting from behind” penalty. A fifteen-year-old Renegades player described that Lever (D) hit Borella with his shoulder with a force he pegged as a “[t]en” on a ten-point scale; this same teammate opined that the hit was with “intent to injure.” A grandparent of a Renegades player characterized the check as “a deliberate hit.” P fell to the ice onto the puck. Lever (D) continued to battle for the puck. P temporarily lost consciousness, and his wrist was sliced by one of the blades Lever (D) wore on his feet in what P acknowledges was a “freak accident.” Mahoney (D) called a minor penalty for “boarding,” sending Lever (D) into the penalty box. P was bleeding from the laceration and was carried from the ice. The injury resulted in the permanent partial loss of the use of P's dominant hand. P sued Ds. Against Lever (D), he asserted claims for negligence and alternatively for battery, alleging that Lever (D) violently struck him from behind and into the boards in violation of the rules and in reckless disregard for his safety. Against the referees, Mahoney (D) and Lerner (D), P asserted claims for negligence and gross negligence for failing to control the game and failing to end the game prior to the injury. Against Brun (D), Grevious (D), and Christopher M. Kanaly (D) (another Team Kanaly coach who was not coaching the team during the game at issue), P asserted claims for negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness for failing to protect the players on the ice from injury. Finally, as against the rink defendants, P asserted claims for negligence and gross negligence for failing to maintain a safe environment, as well as claims for negligent hiring and supervision of the referee defendants. Ds moved for summary judgment and it was granted. P appealed.

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

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