You are here: / / Question of Fact Raised About Whether Release Signed in Anticipation of...
,

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Release Signed in Anticipation of a Skydiving Course Precluded Personal Injury Action

Plaintiff had signed a release of liability in connection with a one-hour skydiving course.  Before the course could be given, the plane crashed and plaintiff was injured.  In moving to dismiss the complaint, the defendants argued that General Obligations Law 5-326, which renders releases issued by “places of recreation” void, did not apply.  The motion court denied the motion to dismiss and the Fourth Department affirmed:

Defendants assert that section 5-326 does not apply here because [defendant] is an instructional facility, rather than a recreational facility. Where a facility is “used for purely instructional purposes,” section 5-326 is inapplicable even if the instruction that is provided relates to an activity that is recreational in nature … . “In assessing whether a facility is instructional or recreational, courts have examined, inter alia, the organization’s name, its certificate of incorporation, its statement of purpose and whether the money it charges is tuition or a fee for use of the facility” …. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, a court “may . . . consider affidavits and other evidentiary material to ‘establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action’ ” … We conclude that [defendant’s] facility is not used purely for instructional purposes based upon our review of [defendant’s] certificate of incorporation, including the statement of purpose contained therein; the services for which plaintiff paid a fee, i.e., whether she paid for a course of instruction or for use of the facilities; as well as the other evidence submitted by defendants. Thus, defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that General Obligations Law § 5-326 does not apply here …  and have failed to establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action. Tiede v Frontier Skydivers, Inc, CA 12-01861, 216, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

You might also like
“Depraved Indifference” Standard Not Met/HIV Positive Defendant Did Not Disclose Status to Victim
THE SORA COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND DURING AN EXTENDED TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT SUPERVISED AS A MITIGATING FACTOR WHICH MAY WARRANT A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT PRECISELY IDENTIFY WHICH OF TWO UNDERLYING OFFENSES IT DESCRIBED AND DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
SHANE, A CO-DEFENDANT WITH HIS PARENTS WITH WHOM HE LIVED, WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM ACCEPTING SERVICE ON BEHALF OF HIS PARENTS DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST; THE ACTION AGAINST THE PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED BASED ON A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR APPOINTED TO HANDLE DEFENDANT’S CASE DID NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE COUNTY LAW; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE, DEFENDANT BAR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NOT VISIBLY INTOXICATED WHEN SERVED AND THEREFORE DID NOT MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN FOR ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT BAR MET ITS INITIAL BURDEN, THUS SHIFITNG THE BURDEN TO THE PLANTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CASUALTY CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT APPLY TO EXCUSE DEFENDANT-TENANT’S NONPAYMENT OF RENT DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC; THE FORCE MAJEURE, FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE AND UNCLEAN HANDS DOCTRINES ALSO DID NOT APPLY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Car Dealership Was Not the Owner of a Car Lent to a Customer While Customer’s... 2 ½ Inch Drop in Pavement Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Loss of...