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
PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD, DID NOT HAVE STANDING BY EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL TO SEEK CUSTODY OR VISITATION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE, THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AND THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MISSED A STATUS CONFERENCE; THE SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE; PLAINTIFF CORRECTLY MOVED TO VACATE THE ORDER AND APPEALED THE DENIAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH BREACHED A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE ENTITLING THE INSURER TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONCOVERAGE (FIRST DEPT).
SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE COLLAPSE OF A CEILING CAUSED A BULGING DISC IN HER SPINE; SUPREME COURT HELD THE SURGERY TO REPAIR THE DISC CONSTITUTED SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITED PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE OF THE SPINE INJURY; THE 1ST DEPARTMENT REVERSED HOLDING THAT A SPOLIATION ANALYSIS CANNOT BE APPLIED TO MEDICAL TREATMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ON A LADDER WHEN HE RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR TURNING OFF THE ELECTRICITY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

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