You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY INJURED HIS HAND WHEN HE SAW HIS DAUGHTER START TO...
,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY INJURED HIS HAND WHEN HE SAW HIS DAUGHTER START TO SLIP OUT OF A SWING ON A SCHOOL PLAYGROUND AND STOPPED THE SWING; THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SWING WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO THIS SCENARIO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff failed to demonstrate the allegedly defective swing was the proximate cause of his injury. Plaintiff alleged the swing was crooked causing his daughter to begin to slip off the seat and he fractured his hand trying to stop the swing. The Second Department noted that the assumption of the risk doctrine did not apply to this scenario:

The concept of assumption of the risk has been “generally restricted . . . to particular athletic and recreative activities in recognition that such pursuits have enormous social value’ even while they may involve significantly heightened risks'” … . “As a general rule application of assumption of the risk should be limited to cases . . . such as personal injury claims arising from sporting events, sponsored athletic and recreative activities, or athletic and recreational pursuits that take place at designated venues” … . Here, the plaintiff was pushing his young daughter in a plastic molded bucket seat swing at a playground on the School District defendants’ property when, while attempting to stop the swing, he “jammed” his hand on the back of it and fractured his hand. Pushing a swing is not the type of activity to which the doctrine of assumption of the risk is applicable … . Moreover, jamming one’s hand in the back of a swing “is not a risk inherent in the activity and flowing from it” … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff’s deposition testimony describing the accident leads to the conclusion, as a matter of law, that under the circumstances of this case the risk of the plaintiff’s injury was not forseeable … . It is not reasonably foreseeable that the allegedly negligent installation of the swing, which caused it to swing crookedly, would have resulted in the plaintiff “jamm[ing]” his hand on the back of the swing and fracturing his hand. The alleged negligent installation of the swing merely furnished the occasion for the unrelated act of the plaintiff reaching out to grab the swing and jamming his hand … . Raldiris v Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of Middletown, 2020 NY Slip Op 00630, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

You might also like
T-Shirts With the Victim’s Photo Worn by Family Members During the Murder Trial Did Not Deprive Defendant of a Fair Trial
DEFENDANT DINER’S SECURITY GUARD KNOCKED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND AND CHOKED HIM; WHETHER THE DINER DEFENDANTS ARE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH AN INTERROGATORY ON THE SCOPE-OF-EMPLOYMENT QUESTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE.
Substantial Evidence Did Not Support Department of Health’s Finding that Property Transfers Rendered Petitioner Ineligible for Medicaid Benefits
Complaint by Members of a Congregation against the Congregation’s Board of Trustees Stemming from the Termination of a Rabbi Reinstated—Criteria for Motions to Dismiss, Statutory Interpretation Principles, Criteria for Stating a Defamation Cause of Action, and the Qualified Immunity Afforded Board Members by the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law Discussed in Some Depth
THE PROPER FOUNDATION FOR BUSINESS RECORDS WAS NOT LAID AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Review Criteria for Actions by Zoning Boards of Appeal
INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE NEW DISCOVERY/DISCLOSURE STATUTES VACATED;... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSTALLING CONDENSERS WAS ‘ALTERATION’...