You are here: / / Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Stepping on Running Treadmill

Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Stepping on Running Treadmill

The Second Department determined plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury from stepping on a treadmill the prior user had left running:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk provides that a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity 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 encompasses risks associated with the construction of the playing field, the activity engaged in, and the surface and any open and obvious conditions on it … . The doctrine has been applied in cases involving injuries sustained in gyms and fitness centers … . Awareness of the risk of engaging in a particular activity is “to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” … . The doctrine, however, does not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased … . * * *

As the risks of using a treadmill were obvious and apparent to the plaintiff, she consented to them, and the defendant discharged its duty of care by making the conditions as safe as they appeared to be … . DiBenedetto Town Sports Intl LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03974, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

You might also like
INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER A HIT-AND-RUN VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF INJURED IN COLLSION WITH A POLICE CAR, POLICE REPORT PROVIDED CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK OF EXCUSE.
HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED BY AN OPEN COURT STIPULATION (CONTRACT) WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION, MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBSEQUENT APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY A RECEIVER WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION WAS STRUCK BY A PIPE WHICH FELL AS IT WAS BEING HOISTED FROM A TRUCK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADD THE VIOLATION OF ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS TO THE BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Mandamus to Compel Judge to Decide Motions Proper
Ordinary Negligence Standard Applied Where Ambulance (Responding to an Emergency) Struck Plaintiff Who Was Lawfully in the Crosswalk/Questions of Fact Whether There Was a “Special Relationship” Between the City’s Crossing Guard and the Plaintiff, and Whether the Crossing Guard Was Performing Ministerial, Rather than Discretionary, Functions (Such that the City Could Be Held Liable)
Statutory 9% Interest Rate, Not Contractual 18% Rate, Should Have Been Applied to Breach of Contract Damages (Even Though the Monthly Payments Were Deposited in an Escrow Account During Litigation)
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT REQUEST THAT RELIEF (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

New Trial Required Because State’s Experts Testified Based On Hearsay... Plaintiff Who Had Right of Way Should Have Been Granted Summary Judgment