You are here: / / DEFENDANT HEAVY METAL CLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK...

DEFENDANT HEAVY METAL CLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF COLLIDING WITH A SLAM DANCER, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant heavy metal club did not demonstrate plaintiff assumed the risk of colliding with a slam dancer. Plaintiff was not participating in the slam dancing:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk “applies when a consenting participant in a qualified activity is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntary assumes the risks'” … . A person who chooses to engage in such an 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 has generally been restricted “to particular athletic and recreative activities in recognition that such pursuits have enormous social value’ even while they may involve significantly heightened risks'” … , and are, therefore, “worthy of insulation from a breach of duty claim” … . Here, even assuming, without deciding, that attending a heavy metal concert where slam dancing takes place is a qualified activity to which the doctrine may properly be applied … , under the facts presented, the defendants, as the organizers and sponsors of the event, failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they met their duty to exercise care to make the conditions at the subject venue as safe as they appeared to be … and did not unreasonably increase the usual risks inherent in the activity of concert going … . Brosnan v 6 Crannell St., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01840, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT HEAVY METAL CLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF COLLIDING WITH A SLAM DANCER, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (SLAM DANCING, (DEFENDANT HEAVY METAL CLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF COLLIDING WITH A SLAM DANCER, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLAM DANCING (DEFENDANT HEAVY METAL CLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF COLLIDING WITH A SLAM DANCER, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT).
SIGNALING THE DRIVER TO STOP FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE DRIVER’S DECISION TO BACK UP WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO REJECT THE LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVED THE LATE SERVICE AND DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE PASSENGER IN PLAINTIFF’S CAR EXECUTED A RELEASE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF-DRIVER; DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION FROM PLAINTIFF FOR ANY INJURY SUFFERED BY THE PASSENGER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Rule Against Successive Summary Judgment Motions Does Not Apply to Issue Rejected as Not Properly Before the Court (Raised for the First Time in Reply Papers) in the Original Motion
HEARSAY EVIDENCE TO WHICH NO OBJECTION WAS MADE CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR’S DEFAULT CONSTITUTED AN ADMISSION TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, INCLUDING THAT PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A GRAVE INJURY (TAKING THE INJURY OUT FROM UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW) (SECOND DEPT).
No-Fault Carriers Not Required to Pay “Facility Fees” for “Office-Based” Surgery

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

CONTINUING TORT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN... PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED...