Recreational soccer injury; Standard of care among coparticipants in recreational activities; Ritchie-Gamester v Berkley; The reckless-misconduct standard; Behar v Fox; Sherry v East Suburban Football League; Duty owed to participants by a sports facility &/or referee; Karas v Strevell (IL); Kline v OID Assoc, Inc (OH App); Negligence; Finazzo v Fire Equip Co; Duty; Composto v Albrecht; Ordinary care; Case v Consumers Power Co; Vicarious liability; Laster v Henry Ford Health Sys; Respondeat superior; Reaching the correct result for the wrong reason

Addressing issues of first impression, the court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition of plaintiff’s direct and vicarious liability claims in favor of defendant-sports complex. Plaintiff sued defendant, as well as its referee, for injuries he sustained during a recreational soccer game at defendant’s facility. He claimed defendant breached its direct duty to him, and also that it was vicariously liable for the referee’s conduct. On appeal, the court noted that this case “presents two related issues of first impression in Michigan: (1) whether referees tasked with officiating recreational activities owe the participants a duty to refrain from acting recklessly under the standard articulated in Ritchie-Gamester, and (2) whether owners and operators of recreational sports facilities owe the participants a duty to refrain from acting recklessly in facilitating recreational activities under” the same standard. It looked to other jurisdictions and agreed with them, finding “that referees tasked with officiating recreational activities owe the participants a duty to refrain from acting recklessly under the” Ritchie-Gamester standard. It also concluded that “recreational sports facilities tasked with organizing recreational activities owe the participants a duty to refrain from acting negligently in organizing such activities.” It then rejected plaintiff’s argument that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the sports complex breached its duty by assigning a “single inattentive referee” to officiate the soccer game. It noted plaintiff failed to present any evidence that more than one referee was required, that defendant knew the referee was inattentive, and that it hired or retained him despite such knowledge or otherwise neglected to adequately train him. Thus, plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendant neglected to exercise ordinary care or whether its acts or omissions caused his injury. As to his vicarious liability claim, “evidence that a referee failed to call two fouls throughout the course of a soccer game . . . alone does not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding a referee’s willingness to harm others or an indifference to whether such harm occurs, as required to establish reckless misconduct.” And while the trial court erred by dismissing this claim on the basis of its conclusion that defendant failed to join the referee as a necessary party because the referee was not a necessary party, it declined to reverse on this basis “because the trial court reached the correct result, albeit partially for the wrong reason.” Affirmed.