You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF PARTICIPATING IN AN OBSTACLE COURSE RACE;...

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF PARTICIPATING IN AN OBSTACLE COURSE RACE; PLAINTIFF FELL ATTEMPTING A ‘MONSTER CLIMB’ WHICH HAD BEEN ERECTED ON A ROADWAY WITH NO MATS BENEATH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by participating in a “Monster Climb” knowing she could fall and knowing there were no protective mats. The event was an obstacle course race sponsored by defendants and held at a public park:

… [T]he plaintiffs argued that the assumption of risk doctrine cannot apply unless the sport or recreational activity takes place at a permanent, designated facility. They also argued that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants unreasonably increased the risk of the Monster Climb obstacle by erecting it on a roadway without protective mats underneath it, by allowing an unlimited number of participants on the obstacle’s cargo nets at the same time, and by having staffers shout at the injured plaintiff to turn her body and hurry up. …

The “assumption of risk doctrine applies where a consenting participant in sporting and amusement activities is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks'”… . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . Risks which are “commonly encountered” or “inherent” in a sport, as well as risks “involving less than optimal conditions,” are risks which participants have accepted and are encompassed by the assumption of risk doctrine … “It is not necessary . . . that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … . A participant’s awareness of risk is “to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” … . Ramos v Michael Epstein Sports Prods., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04973, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

You might also like
A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHICH ALLEGED THE OFFICER FABRICATED A WEAPONS CHARGE.
SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT).
“Hostile Work Environment” (Allegedly Offensive Sex-Related Remarks) and “Retaliation for Opposition to Discriminatory Practices” Causes of Action Explained
Motion for Voluntary Discontinuance Should Not Have Been Granted “With Prejudice”
POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY TOWN OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF A CLAIM STEMMING FROM A COLLISION WITH A TOWN SNOW PLOW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER PREVIOUSLY FILED FRIVOLOUS VISTATION PETITIONS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED HER FROM FILING FUTURE PETITIONS WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY DRUGS, NOT ALCOHOL; DIRECTION TO INSTALL AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENSES INVOLVING ALCOHOL (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED STOLEN PROPERTY FOUND IN THE BOILER ROOM... VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES, ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OR REGULATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE...