You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TYPE OF STICKS AND BALLS USED IN THE LACROSSE...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TYPE OF STICKS AND BALLS USED IN THE LACROSSE GAME AND WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE GOGGLES WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S EYE INJURY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this lacrosse injury case. There were questions of fact about the type of sticks and balls used such that protective goggles were required:

… [W]e find that a triable issue of fact exists as to the nature of the lacrosse game played by the students and whether protective goggles should have been used by the students based upon the game they were playing. Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, a jury must determine whether defendants’ breach of their duty to provide protective goggles was a proximate cause of the infant’s eye injury … . Powers v Greenville Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 01477, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

You might also like
Failure to Strictly Comply with the Service Instructions in the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Which Included Service by E-Mail and Text Message) Required Dismissal of the Petitions
STATUTE REQUIRING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE ACCIDENT DID NOT REQUIRE NOTICE OF ALL THE INJURIES STEMMING FROM THE ACCIDENT.
Hearsay Insufficient to Support Revocation of Substance Abuse Counselor Credential
BEFORE HEARSAY CAN BE RELIED UPON BY THE COURT FOR A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT, THE PEOPLE MUST ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION SUPPORTING THE RELIABILITY OF THE HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT).
Past Domestic Violence Admissible to Show Intent in Rape Case—Victim’s Statements in Hospital Report Admissible under Business Records Exception/Confrontation Clause Not Implicated Because Statements Were Not Testimonial—Victim’s Statements Shortly After the Rape Admissible as Excited Utterances
Safety Regulation Asserted to Be the Basis of the Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action Did Not Apply to the Defect Which Caused the Injury
THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED TO STOP DELIBERATIONS IF IT FOUND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED TO THE TOP COUNT (MURDER); DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED) (THIRD DEPT).
“No Damages for Delay” and “Mandatory Notice” Clauses Precluded Suit

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 PLAINTIFF DID NOT FALL ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE GAP IN THE ELEVATED... PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER, NOT COVERED...