You are here: / / LACROSSE PLAYER JOGGING AROUND LACROSSE FIELD ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING...

LACROSSE PLAYER JOGGING AROUND LACROSSE FIELD ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL.

The Second Department, noting that even bystanders assume the risk of being struck by a ball, determined a lacrosse player who was jogging around the lacrosse field while other players were throwing balls assumed the risk of being struck by a ball:

Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a participant in a sport or recreational activity consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation … . This doctrine also applies to spectators or bystanders who place themselves in close proximity to a playing field … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that by entering the fenced-off field where players were warming up for lacrosse practice, and jogging around the perimeter of the field where lacrosse balls were being thrown between the players and into the net, the injured plaintiff assumed the risk of being struck by a lacrosse ball … . Spiteri v Bisson, 2015 NY Slip Op 09089, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, PLAYER WARMING UP STRUCK BY LACROSSE BALL)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (LACROSSE PLAYER STRUCK BY LACROSSE BALL WHILE WARMING UP)

You might also like
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION BECAUSE HER GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS RELATED TO THE GRAND LARCENY CHARGE (STEALING REAL PROPERTY), HOWEVER SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY RE THE FORGED DEED CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).
Abutting Landowners Are Not Required, Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, to Remove Ice and Snow from Pedestrian Ramps—The Ramps Are Not Part of the Sidewalk
Causes of Action Seeking Monetary Damages Were Not Incidental to the Article 78 Causes of Action and, Therefore, Were Not Subject to the Four-Month Statute of Limitations
FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
“Service Charge” Could Be “Gratuity” to Which Employer Not Entitled
Cause of Action Alleging Retaliation for Sexual Harassment Complaint in Violation of New York City Human Rights Law Dismissed
THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A DOCTOR ORDERED THE RESTRAINT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AS OPPOSED TO NEGLIGENCE, WAS THE APPROPRIATE THEORY; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE 2 1/2 YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE, AS HERE, A PARTY IS A DEFENDANT IN ONE ACTION AND A PLAINTIFF IN ANOTHER ACTION, BOTH OF WHICH STE,M FROM THE SAME TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, THE ACTIONS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED (SECOND 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

FACT THAT PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER IN THE LEAD VEHICLE, WAS NOT AT FAULT IN THE... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WHEEL STOP IN PARKING LOT WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS ...