You are here: / / PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE,...

PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff lacrosse player’s action was not barred by a waiver or the doctrine of assumption of the risk. Plaintiff was in a ground ball drill when a coach through a ball at her head, injuring her. The coach’s act was arguably grossly negligent, reckless or intentional, and therefore not covered by the waiver or the doctrine of assumption of the risk:

​

Here, plaintiff’s complaint and affidavit include allegations that the actions of defendants were grossly negligent and extremely reckless. Contrary to defendants’ contention, the written waiver does not bar plaintiff’s action inasmuch as a waiver is not enforceable with respect to allegations of grossly negligent conduct … .

​

… [I]t is well settled that a person who voluntarily participates in a recreational activity such as lacrosse “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”… . “Such a person, however, will not assume the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, nor will a claim be barred where the conditions caused by the defendants’ negligence are unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent’ in the activity” … . Tauro v Gait, 2018 NY Slip Op 00952, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK  (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT)/WAIVER (LACROSSE INJURY, PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))/LACROSSE (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Allegation of Interference With Possession of Manufactured Home Stated Cause of Action for Conversion
State’s Violation of Inmate Disciplinary-Hearing Due Process Rules Did Not Entitle Inmate to Summary Judgment In His Unlawful Confinement Action
WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE A DISTINCT AND PROPER REASON TO DEMAND THE WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO APPEAL; IT APPEARS THE JUDGE WAS TRYING TO SHIELD THE DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION FROM APPELLATE REVIEW; THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT BASED UPON AN ANONYMOUS TIP HAD ONLY THE COMMON LAW RIGHT OF INQUIRY; THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSENTED TO THE PAT DOWN SEARCH WAS INSUFFICIENT; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL THROUGH A HOLE IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6), PLAINTIFF WAS MEASURING WINDOWS FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW TREATMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
Workers’ Compensation Carrier Has an Automatic Lien Re: Recovery by Injured Worker Against Third-Parties
THE CONDEMNATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY WAS NOT FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTROLLING STATUTES; THE DETERMINATION TO CONDEMN THE PROPERTY WAS ANNULLED OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A DEFECTIVE RAILING ON A SECOND-STORY BALCONY); HOWEVER, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LETTER FROM THE VILLAGE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TRIGGERED AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING... ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT...