You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A STEEL PLATE NEAR THE SIDELINE OF A FOOTBALL...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A STEEL PLATE NEAR THE SIDELINE OF A FOOTBALL FIELD UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAYING HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether a steel plate (covering a pole vault pit) unreasonably increased the risk of injury for high school football players. Plaintiff was tackled and struck the steel plate, which was several feet from the sideline:

“Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational 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'”… . “Participants are not deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks”… . Thus, “[a]n educational institution organizing a team sporting activity must exercise ordinary reasonable care to protect student athletes voluntarily participating in organized athletics from unassumed, concealed, or enhanced risks” … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether the placement of the steel plate in the vicinity of the playing field unreasonably increased the risk of injury to the participants … . Deserto v Goshen Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 06058, Second Dept 8-917

 

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A STEEL PLATE NEAR THE SIDELINE OF A FOOTBALL FIELD UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAYING HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, ASSUMPTION OF RISK,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A STEEL PLATE NEAR THE SIDELINE OF A FOOTBALL FIELD UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAYING HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A STEEL PLATE NEAR THE SIDELINE OF A FOOTBALL FIELD UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAYING HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL (SECOND DEPT))/FOOTBALL (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A STEEL PLATE NEAR THE SIDELINE OF A FOOTBALL FIELD UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAYING HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL (SECOND DEPT)) 

You might also like
THE APPELLATE COURT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, REFUSED TO LOWER DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BY ONE DAY TO AVOID DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAR-DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT; HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FRONT DRIVER STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON (SECOND DEPT).
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply
THE POLICE WERE JUSTIFIED IN STOPPING A BICYCLIST WHO WAS WEAVING AND HOLDING A BULKY OBJECT IN HIS WAISTBAND; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FAMILY COURT CAN DIRECT A PARTY TO SUBMIT TO COUNSELING AS PART OF A VISITATION OR CUSTODY ORDER, THE COURT CANNOT SO CONDITION A PARTY’S REAPPLICATION FOR PARENTAL ACCESS AFTER A DENIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT REFUSED TO SPEAK WITH HIS ATTORNEY; THE JUDGE DENIED REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS A CORRECTABLE DEFECT, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND.

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

MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT... DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF...