You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING FROM A CLIMBING...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING FROM A CLIMBING WALL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff assumed the risk that his harness would become detached causing him to fall from defendant’s climbing wall:

The climbing wall amusement attraction included a safety harness worn by the patron and a belay cable system that attached to the harness by use of a carabiner. There is no dispute that the carabiner detached from the safety harness worn by plaintiff, and that plaintiff fell approximately 18 feet to the ground below.

The doctrine of assumption of the risk operates “as a defense to tort recovery in cases involving certain types of athletic or recreational activities” … . A person who engages 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” … . However, “participants are not deemed to have assumed risks resulting from the reckless or intentional conduct of others, or risks that are concealed or unreasonably enhanced” … . Here, we conclude that the court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion based on assumption of the risk inasmuch as it failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that the risk of falling from the climbing wall is a risk inherent in the use and enjoyment thereof … . Stillman v Mobile Mtn., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04149, Fourth Dept 6-8-18​

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING FROM A CLIMBING WALL (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (CLIMBING WALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING FROM A CLIMBING WALL (FOURTH DEPT))/CLIMBING WALL (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING FROM A CLIMBING WALL (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
BURGLARY SECOND COUNT DISMISSED AS A LESSER INCLUSORY COUNT OF THE TWO BURGLARY FIRST COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DIAGNOSIS AND A STATEMENT INDICATING HIS FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM SORA RISK-LEVEL TWO TO THREE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PETITION BY A FORMER ROMANTIC PARTNER SEEKING JOINT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BORN TO RESPONDENT BASED UPON AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO RAISE THE CHILDREN AS A FAMILY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE REFEREE FOR FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE REFEREE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN A MOTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 (FOURTH DEPT).
LOCAL LAWS CONCERNING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR RETIRED TOWN EMPLOYEES WHICH WERE NOT ENACTED BY REFERENDUM ARE ENTIRELY INVALID (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DISCOVERY REQUESTS AIMED AT AN ISSUE WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A MEMO IN THE RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE ISSUE WAS PRESERVED, THE ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).
AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED; PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION.
A MEDICAL CORPORATION CAN BE LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE IS NO LEGAL SUPPORT FOR A ‘TRI-PARENT’ ARRANGEMENT WHERE A FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER OF MOTHER, MOTHER AND FATHER SHARE VISITATION AND CUSTODY OF THE CHILD (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CITY’S DETERMINATION IT WOULD NOT DEFEND A POLICE OFFICER IN A CIVIL ACTION... PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT...