Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 389 of 1988
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1721 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

ROLLER SKATING SAFETY ACT OF 1988


Act 389 of 1988


445.1721 Short title.

Sec. 1.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as the "roller skating safety act of 1988".

History: 1988, Act 389, Eff. Mar. 30, 1989

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: Woodman v. Kera LLC, 785 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Woodman v. Kera LLC, 785 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “, which proscribes general claims for ordinary negligence, regardless of the injured person's age.”
Ritchie-Gamester v. City of Berkley, 597 N.W.2d 517 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 445.1721 et seq.; M.S.A. § 18.485(1) et seq.”
Kent v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 613 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “We agree with plaintiff that the statute diverges from the common law of negligence (see Ritchie-Gamester v City of Berkley, 461 Mich 73, 85 ; 597 NW2d 517 [1999]: “[T]he Legislature has yet to modify the common-law of torts regarding recreational activities, except in two…”
Barr v. Mt. Brighton Inc., 546 N.W.2d 273 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “] In Skene v Fileccia, 213 Mich App 1 ; 539 NW2d 531 (1995), this Court addressed an issue similar to the one present in the instant case in the context of the Roller Skating Safety Act, MCL 445.1721 et seq.; MSA 18.485(1) et seq.”
Rusnak v. Walker, 729 N.W.2d 542 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “First, and contrary to the Rusnak panel’s analysis, Dale did not hold that the “obvious and necessary” danger language in the assumption-of-risk section of the Roller Skating Safety Act (RSSA), MCL 445.1721 et seq., was implicated in the liability provisions of the RSSA.”
McGoldrick v. Holiday Amusements, Inc., 618 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “This Court noted that Dale specifically considered the provisions of the Roller Skating Safety Act, MCL 445.1721 et seq.) MSA 18.485(1) et seq.”
Dale v. Beta-C, Inc, 574 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “i The present conflict arises out of contradictory interpretations of the Roller Skating Safety Act (rssa), MCL 445.1721 et seq.-, MSA 18.485(1) et seq.”
Skene v. Fileccia, 539 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in this negligence action that requires interpretation of the Roller Skating Safety Act (the act), MCL 445.1721 et seq.; MSA 18.485(1) et seq.”
Weisman v. U S Blades, Inc, 552 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “116(C)(8) and (10) in this negligence action under the Roller Skating Safety Act, MCL 445.1721 et seq.; MSA 18.485(1) el seq.”
Lawrenchuk v. Riverside Arena, Inc, 542 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “1 With regard to roller-skating rinks, see MCL 445.1721 et seq.; MSA 18.485(1) et seq.”
McCormick v. Go Forward Operating Ltd. P'ship, 599 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “In Dale , the Court had to consider the provisions of the Roller Skating Safety Act, MCL 445.1721 et seq.-, MSA 18.485(1) et seq.”
Dale v. Beta-C, Inc., 223 Mich. App. 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “At issue in this case are the following provisions of the Roller Skating Safety Act, 1988 PA 389 , MCL 445.1721 et seq.; MSA 18.485(1) et seq.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.