You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK AND THE LOCATION OF AN UNPADDED...

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK AND THE LOCATION OF AN UNPADDED SNOW MACHINE POLE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the ski resort defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in this skiing accident case. Infant plaintiff allegedly ran into a metal snow machine pole that was not padded:

The motion court dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiff assumed the risks associated with the sport of skiing.

Such risks include the risk of injury resulting from “other persons using the facilities” and from “man-made objects that are incidental to the provision or maintenance of a ski facility,” such as snowmaking equipment (General Obligations Law § 18-101; see also id. § 18-106). However, an individual “will not be deemed to have assumed … unreasonably increased risks”… .

If, as plaintiffs maintain, the unpadded pole was located on the ski trail or in an area where skiing was permitted, then defendants could be found to have failed to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition. General Obligations Law § 18-107 provides that, “[u]nless otherwise specifically provided in this article, the duties of skiers, passengers, and ski operators shall be governed by common law” … . The common law applies where, as here, plaintiffs are alleging inadequate padding of defendant's snowmaking pole, a condition not specifically addressed by the statute (id.). On the record before us, we cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the pole was off-trail and that the pole did not need to be padded. Thus, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment.

Nor are defendants entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the failure to pad the pole did not cause the subject collision, because that failure may have caused or enhanced the infant's injuries … . Madsen v Catamount Ski Resort, 2018 NY Slip Op 06794, First Dept 10-11-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK AND THE LOCATION OF AN UNPADDED SNOW MACHINE POLE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (SKIING, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK AND THE LOCATION OF AN UNPADDED SNOW MACHINE POLE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SKIING (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK AND THE LOCATION OF AN UNPADDED SNOW MACHINE POLE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE-FORCE CASE SET ASIDE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO A $200,000 DAMAGES AWARD (FIRST DEPT).
NEW RULE ALLOWING THE NYC CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD TO INVESTIGATE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS IS INVALID; PUBLIC VETTING PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED (FIRST DEPT).
THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DEMONSTRATED (1) THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE IT TO MAINTAIN A DRAIN WHICH PERIODICALLY BECAME CLOGGED CAUSING GARBAGE TO FLOAT TO THE SIDEWALK, AND (2) IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE GARBAGE ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT). ​
A STAIRWAY CAN BE A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE ALTER-EGO (PIERCE-THE-CORPORATE VEIL) CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS STATED CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (HRL); THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS STATED A CLAIM UNDER ONLY THE CITY HRL; THE CONTINUING VIOLATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO ISOLATED STATEMENTS MADE OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BEAM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM FALLING OBJECTS; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Cross-Examination of People’s Witness About Her Past Status as a Confidential Informant Properly Precluded—Status Ended a Year Before and Witness Had Legitimate Safety Concerns

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

ALTHOUGH THERE IS EVIDENCE THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE MAY APPLY IN THIS... PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED ON LIQUID AND FELL AFTER REACHING FOR THE HANDRAIL,...