You are here: / / PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY WHEN JUMPING FROM THE ROPES...

PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY WHEN JUMPING FROM THE ROPES INTO THE RING.

The Fourth Department determined the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk precluded recovery by a professional wrestler for injuries resulting from a planned jump from the ropes into the ring:

It is well settled that the primary “assumption of [the] risk doctrine applies where a consenting participant in sporting and amusement activities is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks’ ” … . The participant assumes the risks that are inherent in the “sporting or amusement activit[y]” (id.), which “commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him or her from the risk” … . Consequently, a participant in such activity ” consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the [activity] generally and flow from such participation’ ” … . “[F]or purposes of determining the extent of the threshold duty of care, knowledge plays a role but inherency is the sine qua non” … . Finally, “[t]he primary assumption of the risk doctrine also encompasses risks involving less than optimal conditions . . . It is not necessary to the application of assumption of [the] risk that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results’ ” … .

Here, the court properly concluded that the risk of severe neck and back injuries is inherent in the planned and staged activity engaged in by plaintiff, i.e., jumping from a four-foot high rope onto a wrestling ring, landing on one’s back, and then being pushed out of the ring by another performer. Thus, “it is indisputable that . . . plaintiff assumed the risk of landing incorrectly when tumbling in the manner he had been trained to do during his [five-year career as a professional wrestling performer]. The fact that the [rope was slightly looser], a circumstance of which . . . plaintiff was plainly aware, does not raise an issue of fact” … . Therefore, “by participating in the [exhibition], plaintiff consented that the duty of care owed him by defendants was no more than a duty to avoid reckless or intentionally harmful conduct . . . [and] consent[ed] to accept the risk of injuries that are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of his participation in” that exhibition … , including the risk of the injuries he sustained. Kingston v Cardinal O’Hara High School, 2016 NY Slip Op 07798, 4th Dept 11-18-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY WHEN JUMPING FROM THE ROPES INTO THE RING)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY WHEN JUMPING FROM THE ROPES INTO THE RING)

You might also like
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A LOOSE PANEL ON A SELF CHECK OUT MACHINE IN DEFENDANT’S STORE; THE PANEL ALLEGEDLY FELL OFF AND INJURED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).
VENUE FOR THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING TO ANNUL A TOWN LOCAL LAW WHICH CREATED A WILDLIFE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE TOWN IS LOCATED PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW SECTION 66 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK LIFTING A HEAVY METAL STRUCTURE A FEW INCHES TO ALLOW ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE PUT DOWN UNDERNEATH IT; THE INJURY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).
EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PRECLUDING VILLAGE OFFICIALS FROM PARTICIPATING IN A SEQRA REVIEW; PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO RESCIND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AFTER PERMITS WERE ISSUED.
DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MENACING CHARGES WAS ALLOWED IN THE SECOND TRIAL; THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE PRECLUDED PRESENTATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN THE SECOND TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE REMARKS MADE BY THE POLICE DURING THE INTERROGATION OF DEFENDANT SERVED TO NEGATE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; INTERROGATION CONTINUED AFTER DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; THE ERRORS WERE DEEMED HARMLESS BECAUSE DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED EVEN IF THE STATEMENTS HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DUE TO AN APPARENT DRAFTING ERROR, A 16-YEAR SENTENCE IS VALID FOR A FIRST TIME VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BUT IS ILLEGAL (EXCESSIVE) FOR A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER; THE FACIALLY ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE VACATED; THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (FOURTH 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

ABSENCE OF MARKINGS OR COLOR DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN STEP AND SIDEWALK CREATED... TOWING OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (AND INVENTORY SEARCH) AFTER DEFENDANT’S...