Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Organizer of Sports Tournament Who Required Attendees To Stay At a Hotel Dismissed as a Defendant in Premises Liability Case

By Daniel Cummins on March 28, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Organizer of Sports Tournament Who Required Attendees To Stay At a Hotel Dismissed as a Defendant in Premises Liability Case

In the case of E.Z. v. JSKLD Hospitality Enterprise, LLC, No. 2-23-CV-835-RJC (W.D. Pa. March 14, 2025 Colville, J.), a federal district court granted a Motion to for Judgment on the Pleadings in favor of a certain Defendant sued by a Plaintiff in a premises liability case.

In this matter, the Plaintiff sued the owner of the hotel where the accident happened along with a Defendant entity that ran ice hockey tournaments and who required the participants in the tournament to stay at the hotel.
The entity that ran the ice hockey tournaments filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking to be dismissed on the grounds that it had no duty to maintain the premises where the accident happened.   

In this matter, the district court reaffirmed the general rule of law that premises liability does not extend to parties who are not in control of the relevant premises. Rather, the premises liability is focused on the relationship between the individual or entity in control of the premises and the business invitee who ventured on the premises.

The court ruled that the Plaintiffs cannot impute a premises liability duty upon a third-party who is not affiliated with the property.

More specifically, the court ruled that the fact that the organizer of the tournament merely place a hotel on an approved list for the attendees of the tournament did not impose a duty on the organizer of the tournament to inspect that hotel. Furthermore, any such alleged duties were entirely duplicative of the duties already imposed upon the hotel operator itself.

The court offered the additional rationale in support of its Motion to Dismiss by asserting that extending duties to persons without control over the property has no social utility and would, instead, reduce the safety incentives for the actual property owner.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Photo of Daniel Cummins Daniel Cummins

Daniel E. Cummins is a civil litigator and Partner in the Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania law firm of Cummins Law, which is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, just outside of Scranton. He has served as a columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and appeared in…

Daniel E. Cummins is a civil litigator and Partner in the Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania law firm of Cummins Law, which is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, just outside of Scranton. He has served as a columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and appeared in the Best Lawyers in America Director every year since 2015. He is the creator and sole author of Tort Talk, a blog dedicated to discussing updates, trends, and thoughts regarding Civil Litigation Law.

Read more about Daniel CumminsEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Personal Injury
  • Blog:
    Tort Talk
  • Organization:
    Foley, Comerford & Cummins
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo