Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1726 (2026)

Violation; civil action for damages.

✓ 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

445.1726 Violation; civil action for damages.

Sec. 6.

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.

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1995–2007 · leading case: Dale v. Beta-C, Inc, 574 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dale v. Beta-C, Inc, 574 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “[MCL 445.1726; MSA 18.485(6).] In Skene , the plaintiff fractured her wrist when she collided with another skater.”

Barr v. Mt. Brighton Inc., 546 N.W.2d 273 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “” 4 The Roller Skating Safety Act contains a similar provision, MCL 445.1726; MSA 18.485(6) ("A roller skater, spectator, or operator who.”

Rusnak v. Walker, 729 N.W.2d 542 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “” MCL 445.1726; MSA 18.485(6). [Dale, supra at 67 .”

Kent v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 613 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “[MCL 445.1726; MSA 18.485(6).] The fact that the language of the sasa, which was enacted in 1962 and amended in 1981, is not identical to that of the rssa, which was enacted in 1988 and which specifies which safety standards are applicable, does not alter our view.”

Skene v. Fileccia, 539 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “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.”

Weisman v. U S Blades, Inc, 552 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “MCL 445.1726; MSA 18.485(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts and present evidence showing that his injuries resulted from defendant’s failure to comply with the act.”

Rusnak v. Walker, 723 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “” MCL § 445.1726; MSA 18.485(6). [Dale II, supra at 67.”

McCormick v. Go Forward Operating Ltd. P'ship, 599 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “485(3)(b), and that rink operators are liable for civil damages resulting from a violation of the act, MCL 445.1726; MSA 18.485(6). Indeed, the liability of the defendant in Dale was specifically premised on those statutory provisions and the conclusion that those provisions…”

Dale v. Beta-C, Inc., 223 Mich. App. 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “[Section 6; MCL 445.1726; MSA 18.485(6).] Defendant moved for summary disposition on the basis of § 5.”

Dale v. Beta-C, Inc., 566 N.W.2d 640 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “§ 445.1726; M.S.A. § 18.485(6).] Defendant moved for summary disposition on the basis of § 5.”

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.