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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1725 (2026)

Acceptance of dangers inherent in roller skating.

✓ 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


445.1725 Acceptance of dangers inherent in roller skating.

Sec. 5.

    Each person who participates in roller skating accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries that result from collisions with other roller skaters or other spectators, injuries that result from falls, and injuries which involve objects or artificial structures properly within the intended travel of the roller skater which are not otherwise attributable to the operator's breach of his or her common law duties.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1995–2018 · 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× “[56] MCL 445.1725 provides "Each person who participates in roller skating accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary.”
Ritchie-Gamester v. City of Berkley, 597 N.W.2d 517 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 445.1725; M.S.A. § 18.485(5)(Roller Skating Safety Act).”
Skene v. Fileccia, 539 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “[MCL 445.1725; MSA 18.485(5).] A roller skater, spectator, or operator who violates this act shall be liable in a civil action for damages for that portion of the loss or damage resulting from the violation.”
Kenneth Bertin v. Douglas Mann, 918 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. 2018). “See also MCL 445.1725 (providing that a participant "in roller skating accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary," including collisions with objects "properly" placed within the path of the roller skater); MCL 324.”
Weisman v. U S Blades, Inc, 552 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “[MCL 445.1725; MSA 18.485(5).] Plaintiff argues that at the time of his injury, he was “roller blading” in a “roller blading facility,” not roller skating in a roller skating facility and that, therefore, the act is inapplicable.”
Dale v. Beta-C, Inc, 574 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “[MCL 445.1725; MSA 18.485(5).] 3 A roller skater, spectator, or operator who violates this act shall be liable in a civil action for damages for that portion of the loss or damage resulting from the violation.”
Barr v. Mt. Brighton Inc., 546 N.W.2d 273 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “The statutory clause outlining the assumption of risk that roller-skaters agree to accept when they participate in rollerskating, MCL 445.1725; MSA 18.485(5), is virtually identical to that found in the Ski Area Safety Act.”
Rusnak v. Walker, 723 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× ““The statutory clause outlining the assumption of risk that roller-skaters agree to accept when they participate in roller-skating, MCL 445.1725; MSA 18.485(5), is virtually identical to that found in the Ski Area Safety Act.”
Dale v. Beta-C, Inc., 223 Mich. App. 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “[Section 5; MCL 445.1725; MSA 18.485(5) (emphasis added).”
Dale v. Beta-C, Inc., 566 N.W.2d 640 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “§ 445.1725; M.S.A. § 18.485(5) (emphasis added).”
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.