You are here: / / ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY TO STUDENT-ATHLETE’S PARTICIPATION I...
,

ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY TO STUDENT-ATHLETE’S PARTICIPATION IN UNSUPERVISED “HORSEPLAY;” SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff student was injured when, during an unsupervised period of time prior to the beginning of football practice, a blocking sled was being misused to catapult players into the air. Plaintiff fractured both wrists. The Second Department held there was a question of fact re: the negligent supervision cause of action, and further held that the assumption of risk defense did not apply to the “horseplay” which resulted in plaintiff’s injury. With regard to assumption of the risk, the court wrote:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is most persuasively justified for its utility in facilitating ” free and vigorous participation in athletic activities'” … . By placing the risk of participation on the participants themselves, rather than on the sponsor, the doctrine encourages sponsorship, which leads to more opportunities to participate in sports or other recreational activities … . The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not applicable to the conduct at issue in this case. …[T]he use of the blocking sled to catapult each other into the air is not the sort of “socially valuable voluntary activity” that the doctrine seeks to encourage … . Furthermore, the defendants did not establish that the commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of football generally and flow from such participation on the football team included the risk of sustaining injury after being catapulted through the air by a blocking sled … . Duffy v Long Beach City Sch. Dist.. 2015 NY Slip Op 09065. 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATIION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF STUDENTS)/NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, SCHOOL SPORTS, HORSEPLAY)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (STUDENTS)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (SCHOOL SPORTS, HORSEPLAY)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HORSEPLAY)

You might also like
Service Requirements of Education Law 3813(1) Do Not Apply to Disputes Involving the Public Interest As Opposed to Private Rights/Criteria for Granting an Extension (Nunc Pro Tunc) to Effect Service Pursuant to CPLR 306-b Explained
A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES AGREED TO ARBITRATE THE DISPUTE REQUIRES A FRAMED-ISSUE HEARING; THE PROPER PROCEDURE IF ARBITRATION IS REQUIRED IS TO STAY THE UNDERLYING SUIT, NOT DISMISS IT (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED SHE CONTRACTED COVID AT THE WORKPLACE AND WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiff Could Not Rely On Code Provisions Not Mentioned in Plaintiff’s Bill of Particulars to Defeat Summary Judgment
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ BREACH OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE (RESCIND) THE STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT-SELLERS NOT LIABLE FOR MOLD AND MICE IN HOUSE SOLD TO PLAINTIFFS, UNDER THE MERGER DOCTRINE NO PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT SURVIVED THE DELIVERY OF THE DEED, THE DOCTRINE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR APPLIED, NO DUTY OF CARE OWED TO THE PLAINTIFFS OVER AND ABOVE THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS, THE PRIVITY ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION WAS ABSENT (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE CITY WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW IT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE NINE MONTH DELAY BEFORE THE PETITION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT A SLIP AND FALL INCIDENT REPORT WAS CREATED BY THE POLICE ON THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
REMAINDER INTERESTS WHICH CAN ONLY BE DIVESTED BY A POWER OF APPOINTMENT ARE VESTED REMAINDER INTERESTS.

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WHEEL STOP IN PARKING LOT WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS ... CITY (NYC), NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING SIDEWALK HYDRANT...