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
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER (LCSW) CONSTITUTED COMPETENT EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF SUFFERS FROM POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD), PTSD IS A ‘SERIOUS INJURY’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE LAW 5102 (THIRD DEPT).
ATTEMPT TO EXHAUST REMEDIES UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE, THEREFORE THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION PRESENTED AN ISSUE RIPE FOR COURT REVIEW.
COUNTY COURT’S TELLING DEFENDANT HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE ENHANCED IF HE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DID NOT ADEQUATELY INFORM DEFENDANT HIS STATEMENT IN THE PROBATION INTERVIEW THAT HE DID NOT REMEMBER THE BURGLARY WOULD TRIGGER AN ENHANCED SENTENCE; SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THIRD DEPT DECLINED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS SHE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE A VIDEO OF THE INTERROGATION OF DEFENDANT SHOWING HIM REMAINING SILENT WHILE THE POLICE RECOUNTED THE CASE AGAINST HIM (THIRD DEPT).
THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (THIRD DEPT).
OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (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 © 2026 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...