You are here: / / INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL.
,

INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Infant plaintiff was injured playing basketball when he struck the pole holding the hoop. The Second Department held the school district had demonstrated infant plaintiff assumed the risk of that injury:

 

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies where a consenting participant in a sporting activity “is aware of the risks [inherent in the activity]; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks” … . “However, the doctrine will not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … .

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging premises liability by demonstrating that the subject pole was open and apparent, that the risk of colliding with it was inherent in the activity of playing basketball in the courtyard, that the defendant did nothing to conceal or unreasonably increase the risk, and that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily participating in the activity at that location, as he had on numerous prior occasions … . Altagracia v Harrison Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 01141, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL)/BASKETBALL (INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL)

You might also like
THE DIFFERING CRITERIA FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION, HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND RETALIATION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE AND NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAREFULLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS DETERMINED BY THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ACTION, HERE CONVERSION AND FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).
REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK POSTED ON YELP WAS OPINION, NOT ACTIONABLE LIBEL.
Ineffective Electronic Filing Can Be Corrected Pursuant to CPLR 2001 After Statute of Limitations Expired
DECEASED PLAINTIFF’S LAWSUIT DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE OF PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).
Under the Circumstances, Court Properly Considered New Information Presented in a Surreply
Statute of Frauds Precluded Real Property-Related Action; Equitable Part Performance Doctrine Not Applicable
JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, CONVICTION REVERSED.

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

COVERAGE AT ISSUE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICY EXCLUSION (WHICH WAS THEN ADDED... IN A FEE DISPUTE, PLAINTIFF-ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY CLIENT OF THE...