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
AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE A SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE REVEALED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT MAY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL; BASED UPON THE LIMITED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT WHEN THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS MADE, THE ALLEGATION THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ENTER WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
Ladder Which “Kicked Out” from Under Plaintiff Entitled Plaintiff to Partial Summary Judgment/Replacement of Cracked Glass Constituted Covered “Repair” Not Routine Maintenance
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR WORK WHEN A PERMANENT LADDER IN AN ELEVATOR SHAFT ALLEGEDLY VIBRATED CAUSING HIM TO FALL; EVEN IF A HARNESS WERE AVAILABLE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION OVER THE NEGLECT PROCEEDING UPON LEARNING FATHER HAD COMMENCED A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN TEXAS; THERE WAS NO ASSURANCE FROM THE TEXAS COURT RE: SAFEGUARDING THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL (FIRST DEPT).
Pursuant to the Public Authorities Law, Interest on a Judgment To Be Paid by the New York City Transit Authority Cannot Exceed 3%
THE POLICE STARTED FOLLOWING DEFENDANT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE CROSSED THE STREET TO AVOID THEM; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE GROUNDS FOR A COMMON-LAW INQUIRY AND NOTHING DEFENDANT DID AFTER THE STREET STOP JUSTIFIED THE LEVEL THREE SEIZURE OF THE DEFENDANT; THE WEAPON FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE INDICTMENT DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC SUBDIVISION OF THE STATUTE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING, A JURISIDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH WAS NOT CURED BY AN AMENDMENT; CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (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...