You are here: / / Primary Assumption of Risk Precluded Lawsuit

Primary Assumption of Risk Precluded Lawsuit

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiff was an experienced boxer and was injured when he stepped into a gap (about which he was aware) under the canvas surface of the boxing ring:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk provides that “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . This includes risks associated with any open and obvious conditions of the playing field, including risks arising from “less than optimal conditions” … . Thus, “when an experienced athlete . . . is aware of the existence of a particular condition on the premises where the activity is to be performed, and actually appreciates or should reasonably appreciate the potential danger it poses, yet participates in the activity despite this awareness, he or she must be deemed to have assumed the risk of injury which flows therefrom” … . Baccari v KCOR, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05865, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
“Lack of Standing” Defense to Foreclosure Action Is Waived If Not Raised in the Answer or a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss
Tracked In Water, Failure to Demonstrate When Area Last Inspected Precluded Summary Judgment
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT).
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND CONSPIRACY WERE PROPER, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT). ​
Petitioners Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Construction of Shopping Mall/No Showing of Unique Environmental Injury
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY A FIREFIGHTER PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT EXPLAINED IN DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE IT WAS REQUIRED TO VACATE THE CONVICTION; DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE REJECTED A PLEA OFFER WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE COULD BE SUBJECT TO LIFE IN PRISON AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER AFTER TRIAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE AFTER FINDING DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL COURT MAY NOT SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 ON A GROUND WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL AS A MATTER OF LAW–HERE THE ALLEGED FACTUAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE CONVICTION OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD AND THE ACQUITTALS ON ALL THE OTHER SEXUAL-OFFENSE COUNTS (SECOND 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

Plaintiff Unable to Identify Cause of Fall Question of Fact Whether ¾ Inch Height Differential Was “Trivial”