You are here: / / Collision With Another Swimmer Not Actionable/Primary Assumption of Ri...

Collision With Another Swimmer Not Actionable/Primary Assumption of Risk

The Second Department determined unintentional, incidental contact between swimmers in the same swim lane during “free swim” was not actionable:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is based on the principle that athletic and recreational activities possess enormous social value, even though they involve significantly heightened risks … . Thus, ” [a] plaintiff is barred from recovery for injuries which occur during voluntary sporting or recreational activities if it is determined that he or she assumed the risk as a matter of law'” … . Participants are not deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . However, by voluntarily engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant assumes, or consents to, the commonly appreciated risks that are inherent in and arise out of the activity generally, and which flow from the participation … . An incidental collision or contact between persons confined to a pool lane during a free swim is an inherent risk of the activity … .  Rueckert v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 02918, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

You might also like
SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS RE FIRST DEGREE MURDER; CROSS EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER RE EXCESSIVE FORCE PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).
Unambiguous Limitation of Liability to $10,000 Should Have Been Enforced
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT SEE PLAINTIFF’S BRAKE LIGHTS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
ELEVATOR REPAIR COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), STATIONARY LADDER WAS A SAFETY DEVICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER AFFORDED ADEQUATE PROTECTION.
DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE INTERVENTION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; STRONG TW0-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PLED AS “CONVERSION” AND “UNJUST ENRICHMENT,” THEY STEMMED FROM ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR BREACH-OF-CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED, NOT THE THREE-YEAR TORT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AT JFK AIRPORT, OWNED BY THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ, BY A FORKLIFT WHICH WAS BACKING UP; THE FACT THAT REAR-VIEW MIRRORS WERE OPTIONAL WAS NOT A DESIGN DEFECT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THE PORT AUTHORITY WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE ACTION ALLEGING FAILURE TO INSPECT THE FORKLIFT, CRITERIA EXLAINED (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

Failure to Appear at Deposition Was a Material Breach of a Condition Precedent... Failure to Take Evasive Action Did Not Constitute Contributory Negligence