Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc.
New Jersey Supreme Court
31 N.J. 44, 155 A.2d 90 (1959)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
While ice-skating on a rink operated by Casino Arena Attractions, Inc. (Casino) (defendant), Meistrich (plaintiff) became injured after he fell. There was evidence that on the day of the incident Casino had prepared the ice in a manner that made it too hard and too slippery. However, Meistrich was aware that his skates slipped on turns and yet he remained on the ice and skated until he fell. Meistrich sued Casino for negligence. After a jury trial, the court instructed the jury that if Meistrich knew, or reasonably should have known of the risk or falling and becoming injured, then he assumed the risk and could not recover damages. The jury found for Casino and Meistrich appealed. The appellate division reversed finding the trial court erred in giving its instruction regarding assumption of the risk. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted Casino’s petition for certification.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weintraub, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.