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
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A STEEL BAR WHICH FELL DURING AN ATTEMPT TO HOIST IT WITH EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXACT CAUSE FOR THE BAR’S FALLING, NOR DID HE NEED TO SPECIFY THE EQUIPMENT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED (FIRST DEPT). ​
IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED.
THE FACT THAT A (NON-DEFECTIVE) A-FRAME LADDER FELL OVER WHILE PLAINTIFF HELD ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
Elements of Defamation, Invasion of Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained
HOLDOVER RENT IN AN AMOUNT THREE TIMES EXISTING RENT CONSTITUTED APPROPRIATE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, NOT A PENALTY; DEFENDANT, THE SELLER OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT, REQUESTED POSSESSION FOR THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE CLOSING (FIRST DEPT).
Landlord May Not Withhold Consent for Continued Operation of a Sidewalk Cafe Where the Lease Contemplated the Operation of the Cafe (Which Had Been in Operation for 50 Years) and Where the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Restricted the Landlord’s Ability to Withhold Consent/Erroneous Stipulated Fact Does Not Bind the Appellate Court
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS SELLING TICKETS TO A SPORTING EVENT OUTSIDE THE ARENA, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE TICKETS WERE FORGED WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN HE SAW THE POLICE WAS EQUIVOCAL (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY DEFENDANT OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

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...