You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NORMAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH...

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NORMAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HORSEBACK RIDING WERE NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASED BY THE RIDING INSTRUCTOR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when she fell off a horse during riding instruction. The instructor had plaintiff execute a maneuver with her feet outside the stirrups. The plaintiff had told the instructor she could not do the maneuver and she fell when attempting it:

Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting 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'” … . The doctrine operates to limit the scope of the defendant’s duty, and “it has been described [as] a principle of no duty’ rather than an absolute defense based upon a plaintiff’s culpable conduct” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . “The risks of falling from a horse or a horse acting in an unintended manner are inherent in the sport of horseback riding” … .

The primary assumption of risk doctrine does not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased … . “[A]wareness of risk is not to be determined in a vacuum. It is, rather, to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” … . Furthermore, “in assessing whether a defendant has violated a duty of care within the genre of tort-sports activities and their inherent risks, the applicable standard should include whether the conditions caused by the defendants’ negligence are unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport'” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish [their] prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the conduct of [the instructor] did not unreasonably increase [plaintiff’s] exposure to the risk of falling. Georgiades v Nassau Equestrian Ctr. at Old Mill, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09249, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, UNREASONABLE INCREASE OF RISK)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (UNREASONABLE INCREASE)

You might also like
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTEREST OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE.
MANDAMUS PETITION TO COMPEL JUDGES TO ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER DECIDING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO REARGUE HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER OCCURRED DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLD BY DEFENDANT’S DAUGHTER THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT ADDRESS; BUT, IN FACT, DEFENDANT DID NOT RESIDE AT THAT ADDRESS; SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT).
Statutory Requirements for Recovery and Limits Imposed by Subrogation Explained; ”Law of the Case” Doctrine in Appellate Context Explained
MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILD RETURNED AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE CHILD HAD BEEN RETURNED AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVAL OF A CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
A NYC REGULATION REQUIRES FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO BE WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE CURB WHEN PICKING UP OR DISCHARGING PASSENGERS; THE DRIVER STOPPED TWO FEET FROM THE CURB AND PLAINTIFF FELL TRYING TO GET INTO THE VEHICLE; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE UBER DRIVER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL;... “TRIAL PREPARATION” EXCEPTION TO A DETERMINATION WHETHER A PHOTOGRAPHIC...