You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED ...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE DANGERS INHERENT IN TUBING.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the operators of a tubing hill unreasonably increased the risk of injury. The issues included whether there was adequate supervision, whether there was adequate protection at the bottom of the hill (hay to slow the tubes), and whether mother and son should have been allowed to tube together (thereby increasing speed):

… [I]t was plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate “facts from which it could be concluded that defendant . . . unreasonably enhanced the danger . . . or created conditions which were unique or above those inherent in [the] activity …”. A supervisor for defendants testified that on busy days, two people were assigned to work at the base of the tubing hill to spread and “fluff” the hay as needed based on conditions. At the time of the accident, however, there was only one attendant working in this area. Further, the supervisor decided to limit the tandem riders to a parent and a child based on conditions and confirmed that weight affected the speed of the tubes, i.e., the greater the weight, the greater the speed. Plaintiff testified that just before the accident, the attendant at the top of the tubing hill assured her that it was safe for her to ride in tandem with her adult-sized son, who was nearly six feet tall and weighed approximately 250 pounds. Plaintiff’s son testified that “there wasn’t a whole lot of hay” spread at the bottom of the course. A nonparty witness testified that the tubing park was very busy and that, before the accident, he observed that the hay had diminished to the point where tubers were dragging their feet to stop their tubes. Notably, defendant’s base attendant testified that once the tandem riders were limited to one adult and one child, no other groups went past the hay, while plaintiff and her son “blew through everything.” She recalled being surprised to see two adult-sized people coming down in tandem because “it was supposed to be an adult and a child.” Connolly v Willard Mtn., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 06937, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE DANGERS INHERENT IN TUBING)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE DANGERS INHERENT IN TUBING)/TUBING (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE DANGERS INHERENT IN TUBING)

You might also like
Preservation by Objection Not Required When Defendant First Learns of Post-Release Supervision Moments Before Sentencing
Cotenant’s Exclusive Possession and Payment of Taxes and Maintenance Costs, Standing Alone, Are Not Enough to Establish Adverse Possession As Against a Cotenant/Criteria for Ouster of Cotenant Not Met
THE CARRIER’S FAILURE TO INDICATE WHEN IT OBJECTED TO THE RULING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE JUSTIFIED THE DENIAL OF THE CARRIER’S APPLICATION FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).
Time Constraints, In Workers’ Compensation Law 25, for Seeking Reimbursement for Compensation Paid by Self-Insured Employer Applied to Workers’ Compensation Law 30 As Well
SUPERMARKET EMPLOYEES HAD NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN A CAR IN THE SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT.
THE TRUST AGREEMENT INDICATED THE DECEDENT INTENDED A CHARITABLE GIFT BE MADE TO A PARTICULAR LOCAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL WHICH HAD CLOSED, NOT TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH HAD OPERATED THE CLOSED SCHOOL 3RD DEPT.
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON FIRST DEGREE, THE WEAPON BEING AN IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED); THE ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON THIRD DEGREE COUNT IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT WHICH MUST BE DISMISSED; COUNTY COURT IMPROPERLY RESENTENCED DEFENDANT IN HIS ABSENCE, REQUIRING VACATION OF THE SENTENCE (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT-NURSE’S MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS WERE NOT COMPENSABLE AS THEY WERE NOT CAUSED BY GREATER THAN NORMAL STRESSORS (THIRD 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

EXPERIENCED SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A DEPRESSION IN THE SKI TRAI... FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW...