You are here: / / Passenger in Recreational Go-Kart Assumed the Risk of Injury Caused by...

Passenger in Recreational Go-Kart Assumed the Risk of Injury Caused by Being “Bumped” by Another Go-Kart

The First Department determined plaintiff, a passenger in an electric, recreational go-kart, assumed the risk of injury alleged to have been caused by the go-kart being “bumped” by other go-karts. The court noted that (1) the written waiver of liability signed by the plaintiff was void as against public policy, and (2) the go-kart operator had a written policy prohibiting intentional “bumping,” but held that the common-law assumption of risk doctrine nevertheless applied:

[The “assumption of risk”] doctrine applies to “certain types of athletic or recreational activities,” where “a plaintiff who freely accepts a known risk commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him or her from the risk'” … . While “participants are not deemed to have assumed risks resulting from the reckless or intentional conduct of others, or risks that are concealed or unreasonably enhanced” …, the concept of a “known” risk includes “apparent or reasonably foreseeable” risks inherent in the activity … .

The activity in which plaintiff engaged is a type to which the assumption of risk doctrine is appropriately applied. “In riding the go-cart, the plaintiff . . . assumed the risks inherent in the activity” … . Those risks included the risk “that the go-cart would bump into objects” … . Of course, the “apparent or reasonably foreseeable” risks inherent in go-karting also include the risk that vehicles racing around the track may intentionally or unintentionally collide with or bump into other go-karts. It is that inherent risk which “negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard [plaintiff] from the risk” … . Garnett v Strike Holdings LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06694, 1st Dept 9-1-15

 

You might also like
GIVING THE CORRECT “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” JURY INSTRUCTION THREE TIMES WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER WHO ALLEGEDLY SHOT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF A POLICE OFFICER’S DISCIPLINARY RECORD (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT APPORTIONING LIABILITY TO THE GYNECOLOGIST WHO NOTED IN HIS REPORT HE FOUND “NO ABNORMALITIES” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE NOTATION MISLED THE PRIMARY CARE PHYICIAN RESULTING IN A DELAY IN DIAGNOSING APPENDICITIS (FIRST DEPT).
IN THE CONTEXT OF A CONTRACT IMPOSING CAPS FOR “NONWILLFUL” AND “WILLFUL” BREACHES, THE FACT THAT THE BREACH MAY HAVE BEEN DELIBERATE DID NOT RENDER THE BREACH “WILLFUL,” WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO REFER TO “TRULY HARMFUL, CULPABLE CONDUCT;” SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
Mandamus to Compel Proceedings Properly Sought to Compel the NYC Housing Authority to Consider Requests for Increases in “Section 8” Rent Subsidies (A Ministerial Act), But a Particular Result Could Not Be Compelled (Because Exercise of Discretion Involved)
Labor Law 241(6) Claim Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Although Claimant Did Not Perform “Labor-Intense Aspects of the Project” His Finance-Related Job Entailed On-Site Inspections
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE ROPE AND FRAME USED TO PREVENT A HEAVY OBJECT FROM FALLING WHEN PLAINTIFF DETACHED IT FROM THE WALL DID NOT WORK (FIRST DEPT).
NONE OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLIED TO THE DEFENDANT FIRE SAFETY AND SECURITY CONTRACTOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE IT BELOW, BECAUSE IT CONCERNED A QUESTION OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).
RIDER ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING THROWN FROM A HORSE.

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

Fees Owed by Seller to “Financial Advisor” Hired by Seller to Facilitate... Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the...