Missouri Court of Appeals Finds a Person Playing Amateur Ice Hockey Assumes the Risk of Broken Bones

Does a person assume the risk of breaking a bone while playing amateur ice hockey? That was the classic “torts in sports” question of first impression addressed by the Missouri Court of Appeals in its recent opinion in Becker v. Schenk, 2025 WL 1689477 (Mo. App. 2025).

The court described the facts as follows:

On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant played for opposing teams during the league’s winter championship game. The parties lacked any financial or professional incentive to win. Although the parties describe the league as ‘no-contact,’ players are still required to wear protective equipment, including gloves, elbow pads, pants with protection, shin guards, skates, and a helmet with a visor to prevent injury.

During the game at issue, Plaintiff carried the puck into the opposing team’s side of the rink. Defendant was trying to stop Plaintiff from scoring when he slashed and body-checked Plaintiff. Plaintiff fell onto the ice and suffered a broken wrist. A Referee initially called a two-minute penalty against Defendant for the slash and body-check, then Referee increased the penalty to five minutes after seeing Plaintiff’s injury.

The plaintiff thereafter sued the defendant, who raised assumption of the risk as a defense. In finding that the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendant, the Missouri Court of Appeals concluded that,

even viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the sport of ice hockey played at any level, amateur or otherwise, is and remains an aggressive contact sport, which, unsurprisingly, means players are at risk of serious physical injury….“In contact sports, physical contact and injuries among participants [are] inherent and unwarranted judicial intervention might inhibit the game’s vigor.”…Given the lack of Missouri cases, we examine cases from other jurisdictions in addressing the issue of recklessness in amateur ice hockey….Other states that also follow the recklessness standard granted summary judgment in favor of defendant-players in contact sports, specifically ice hockey, in instances of conduct more egregious than in this case. Borella v. Renfro, 96 Mass.App.Ct. 617, 137 N.E.3d 431, 436–437, 440–41 (2019) (finding a high school hockey player did not act recklessly under Massachusetts law when he body-checked and slashed an opposing player’s wrist with his skates as hard checking was an inherent and fundamental part of the sport); Barton by Barton v. Hapeman, 251 A.D.2d 1052, 674 N.Y.S.2d 188, 188–89 (1998) (finding a defendant-player did not act recklessly under New York law when he “charged” and “cross-checked” a thirteen-year-old player from behind even in violation of league rules). Plaintiff cites to Referee’s testimony about the five times Referee witnessed a body-check resulting in a broken bone as proof that broken bones are outside the realm of reasonable risks while playing ice hockey. However, this testimony actually supports the opposite conclusion—that Plaintiff should have known a broken bone was a possibility because it happened multiple times before. See Ferbet, 618 S.W.3d at 607 (considering prior similar incidents as relevant to evaluating whether a particular activity, such as snow tubing, has inherent risks); see also O.L. v. R.L., 62 S.W.3d 469, 476–77 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (internal quotation omitted) (“[F]oreseeability is not to be measured by what is more probable than not, but includes whatever is likely enough in the setting of modern life that a reasonably thoughtful person would take account of it in guiding practical conduct.”).

d