A California appellate panel has affirmed summary judgment for the owner of SoFi Stadium and the Los Angeles Chargers in a premises-liability suit brought by a season ticket holder who alleged he broke his hip after tripping on a curb while entering the stadium before a 2021 game. The decision underscores the continuing impact of liability waivers embedded in ticketing and membership contracts, particularly when plaintiffs plead only ordinary negligence and do not develop a record supporting gross negligence. The court’s analysis focused on burden shifting at summary judgment and the limits of contractual releases under California law when claims beyond ordinary negligence are not properly raised.
Season Ticket Holder’s Curb-Trip Claim at SoFi Stadium
Marshall Krupp sued Kroenke Sports & Entertainment LLC, Chargers Football Co. LLC, and related entities after he allegedly tripped on a curb while walking into SoFi Stadium and suffered a broken hip. The complaint framed the dispute as a negligence-based premises claim tied to stadium ingress conditions and management of the walking path leading into the venue. Krupp also named crowd management contractor Contemporary Services Corp., widening the case to include entities responsible for event-day operations and patron flow.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, pointing to a Chargers season ticket membership agreement Krupp signed in 2019. According to the court’s description of that agreement, the contract contained a release provision waiving claims for ordinary negligence and holding certain stadium-related parties free from liability while the ticket holder was on the premises. The waiver became the focal point for resolving the case without trial, with the parties disputing whether the record supported any claim outside the scope of an ordinary-negligence release.
Trial Court Summary Judgment Enforcing the Liability Waiver
The Los Angeles County trial court granted summary judgment for the Kroenke and Chargers entities and other related defendants, concluding that the membership agreement’s release provision was enforceable as to ordinary negligence and barred Krupp’s claims as pleaded. Contemporary Services Corp. was also named in the lawsuit, and the trial court’s disposition cleared the moving defendants based on the contract language and the claims presented.
On appeal, Krupp argued that the defendants had not carried their burden to negate gross negligence, which is generally not covered by contractual releases that waive liability only for ordinary negligence. The appellate decision, however, treated that contention as dependent on what the pleadings and evidentiary record actually put at issue. The defense was handled by Agajanian McFall Weiss & Tetreault LLP, according to court filings, and the appellate briefing centered on how waiver enforcement interacts with summary judgment burdens when the complaint alleges negligence without identifying a gross-negligence theory.
Court of Appeal Affirms, Citing Pleading and Burden-Shifting Rules
A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The panel concluded that Krupp’s attempt to rely on gross negligence at the summary judgment stage did not align with his complaint, which never mentioned “gross negligence” and did not plead facts framing the defendants’ conduct as an extreme departure from ordinary care. In that posture, the court found the burden did not remain with defendants to disprove a claim not raised as a material issue by the pleadings.
The panel relied on its prior reasoning in Hass v. RhodyCo Productions (2018) for the proposition that defendants moving for summary judgment are not required to refute allegations of gross negligence when the complaint does not place gross negligence in issue. As stated in the opinion, “This case is analogous to Hass,” because, as in Hass, the complaint neither referenced the release nor raised gross negligence as a material issue. The court therefore held that once defendants established the existence and applicability of the release to ordinary negligence, the burden shifted to Krupp to produce evidence supporting gross negligence, which the panel found he did not do.
Practical Implications for Venue Operators and Plaintiffs
In evaluating whether Krupp met that burden, the panel emphasized the demanding nature of gross negligence under California law, quoting the standard as conduct reflecting “either a want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.” The court found Krupp did not identify evidence that would satisfy that standard based on the curb condition and entry circumstances described, nor did he articulate how the asserted deficiencies rose above ordinary negligence in a way that would defeat an ordinary-negligence waiver.
The decision highlights a recurring procedural hinge point in liability-waiver litigation: plaintiffs who anticipate challenging a release on the basis of gross negligence must plead and support that theory with concrete evidence capable of meeting the heightened standard. For venue operators and event contractors, the ruling reinforces that membership and ticketing agreements can be outcome-determinative when drafted to address ordinary negligence and when claims are litigated within the contours of the pleadings. The case is Marshall Krupp v. Kroenke Sports & Entertainment LLC et al., No. B343908, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District.
