Referees Owe Reckless Misconduct Standard Of Care Toward Recreational Activity Players, Facilities Held to Ordinary Negligence

Alan Lares v Evolution Sportsplex, LLC

• Opinion Published: March 26, 2025 (Yates, P.J., and Letica and N. P. Hood, JJ.)

• Docket No. 370339

• Oakland County Circuit Court

Holding: Referees tasked with officiating recreational activities owe the participants a duty to refrain from acting recklessly, while recreational sports facilities tasked with organizing recreational activities owe the participants a duty to refrain from acting negligently in organizing such activities.

Facts: Plaintiff Alan Lares was injured while playing in a soccer league for men over the age of 30 at Defendant Evolution Sportsplex. In addition, to Defendant facility, Lares sued John Doe I – the player who injured him – and John Doe II – the referee who Lares alleged failed to officiate the game adequately and by his negligence, permitted players’ aggressive gameplay to escalate, resulting in his injury. Lares’ complaint stated claims of negligence in the hiring, retention, training and supervision of the referee by the facility, as well as respondeat superior liability against the facility for the actions of the referee.

Defendant facility argued that summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) was warranted because under the reckless-misconduct standard of care, Lares’ injury was a normal consequence of participation in a typical soccer game, and it could not have prevented his injury by acting any differently. This same reasoning was argued to warrant dismissal of the respondeat superior theory of liability as well. The trial court agreed and further held that because John Doe II – the referee – had not been joined as a party, dismissal of the vicarious liability claim was warranted as a matter of law.

On review, the Court of Appeals relied on the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in Ritchie-Gamester v Berkley, 461 Mich 73; 597 NW2d 517 (1999) which held that the reckless misconduct standard is the minimum standard of care for coparticipants in recreational activities. The Court of Appeals recognized that this standard of care has historically limited to active coparticipants in the recreational activity. The  issue presented for the Court of Appeals was whether this same standard should apply to referees or owners and operators of recreational sports facilities.

The Court first looked to other jurisdictions which have held that applying an ordinary negligence standard would have a “chilling effect on referees and players that would change the nature of play.” Agreeing with these jurisdictions, the Court of Appeals held that the reckless misconduct standard applied to referees and persons tasked with officiating recreational activities. Recognizing that participants knowingly subject themselves to certain risks inherent in those activities, including “vigorous play and rule violations.” The Court concluded that application of a lesser ordinary negligence standard to officials, “could unjustly insulate from liability participants in recreational activities directly responsible for injuring others while imposing liability on referees who bear indirect responsibility for such injuries.”

Key Appellate Rulings:  

Referees owe the same reckless misconduct standard of care toward players of recreational activities as the participants themselves.

Looking to the negligence claim against the facility, the Court recognized the difference between facilities organizing recreational activities and the players actively participating in those recreational activities. The Court concluded that recreational sport facilities owe the participants “a duty to refrain from acting negligently in organizing such activities.” The Court rejected the argument that applying an ordinary negligence standard of care would encourage litigation against those facilities, since the Court would not be tasked with “second-guessing real-time decisions” of active participants in the recreational activities. Applying that standard to the direct negligence claim made against Evolution Sportsplex, LLC, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition finding no evidence of any rule, statute or regulation requiring more than one referee be assigned to officiate a soccer game.

Recreational sports facilities owe an ordinary negligence standard of care to participants, rather than the higher reckless misconduct standard applicable to claims against officials and coparticipants.

As to the vicarious liability claim against Defendant facility based on the alleged conduct of its employee referee, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the facility could be liable for the tortious acts of its employees acting within the scope of their employment. However, in this case, there was no genuine issue of material fact that the referee engaged in reckless misconduct in the performance of his duties. While the trial court wrongly dismissed Lares’ vicarious liability claim because the referee was not joined as a party, the Court of Appeals declined to reverse the trial court’s order of summary disposition, finding that it reached the right result “albeit partially for the wrong reason.”

Claim of vicarious liability do not require the joinder of the allegedly negligent actor as a necessary party to the case in order to impose liability against the employer for their actions.