You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE...

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the benches near the field where plaintiff was playing football were open and obvious and plaintiff had assumed the risk of tripping over them:

​

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, “[i]f the risks of [a sporting] activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious to [a voluntary participant], he or she has consented to them and the [defendant] has discharged its duty of care by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be” … . “Risks inherent in a sporting activity are those which are known, apparent, natural, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation” … . “This includes risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it” …  “If the risks are known by or perfectly obvious to the player, he or she has consented to them and the property owner has discharged its duty of care by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be” … .

Here, according to the infant plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, there was nothing marking the area where the benches were located as the end zone, but if the ball was caught in the vicinity of the bench, the campers would consider that a touchdown. The infant plaintiff also testified that he flipped over one of the benches as he was running for a pass and that, prior to turning to catch the ball, he had run the full length of the field looking ahead toward the benches, which were situated alongside the volleyball courts. Consequently, the bench was open, obvious, clearly visible, and known to the infant plaintiff … . Since the infant plaintiff, who had been playing football on this field for more than an hour when the accident occurred, was aware of that condition and voluntarily chose to play on the field, he assumed the risk of injury of colliding into one of the benches when attempting to score … . E.B. v Achim, 2017 NY Slip Op 09115, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SPORTS, PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/SPORTS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Basketball Player Assumed Risk of Running Into Glass Doors Behind Baseline
DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AT HIGH SPEEDS AND IGNORING TRAFFIC LIGHTS, RESULTING IN AN INTERSECTION COLLISION WHICH KILLED THE OTHER DRIVER, SUPPORTED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION.
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION OF TWO DRUGS TO SAMUEL D, A MENTALLY ILL PERSON, OVER SAMUEL D’S OBJECTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY-RELATED ACTIONS WERE NOT WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DELAYS WARRANTED VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND PAYMENT OF $3000 TO DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTIMIDATING WITNESSES SUCH THAT OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS BY THOSE WITNESSES WERE ADMISSIBLE; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXERCISE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE, A VIOLATION OF THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT’S TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, MOTHER WAS DEALING WITH HER MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG PROBLEMS AND THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN WERE BEING ADDRESSED (SECOND 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

DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DEPRESSION OR HOLE PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO,... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SAW WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE...