You are here: / / THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT FOOTBALL PLAYER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK OF INJURY...
,

THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT FOOTBALL PLAYER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK OF INJURY IN A FOOTBALL-RELATED WEIGHT-LIFTING SESSION; THE RISK OF A WEIGHT-LIFTING INJURY IS NOT INHERENT IN THE GAME OF FOOTBALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-student, a high school sophomore varsity football player, did not assume the risk of injury during a weight-lifting training-session when he voluntarily agreed to play football. The decision includes a good explanation of the assumption-of-the-risk doctrine:

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a person who voluntarily participates in a sport or recreational activity is deemed to consent to the risks inherent in that sport, thereby negating any duty on a defendant’s part to safeguard the plaintiff from those risks … . While the absolute defense of implied assumption of risk, which was abolished by the enactment of CPLR 1411 in 1975, barred recovery by a plaintiff who was aware of the risks of engaging in a specific act and engaged in that specific act nonetheless …, the separate and distinct doctrine of primary assumption of risk posits that the risk is assumed by virtue of the plaintiff’s voluntary participation in a sporting event, which indicates the plaintiff’s consent to the risks that are inherent in that sport. Although a plaintiff’s knowledge of the risk involved in the particular act that results in injury remains relevant, under CPLR 1411, in assessing his or her comparative fault, in the context of primary assumption of risk, “knowledge plays a role but inherency is the sine qua non” … . * * *

Unlike a plaintiff subject to the pre-1975 defense of implied assumption of risk, the infant plaintiff in this case did not assume a risk at the moment he attempted to lift the 295-pound bar. Rather, his assumption of risk occurred when he joined the football team …, and the risks he assumed were limited to those that are inherent in the sport of football. The risk of losing control of a 295-pound bar is not a risk inherent in the sport of football … . Annitto v Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 06098, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: This decision clarifies the boundaries of the assumption-of-the-risk as it applies to school sports. When the plaintiff-student joined the football team, he assumed the risks inherent in the game of football. Here, those risks were not deemed to extend to weight-training, even though the weight-training was football-related. The student’s negligent supervision action stemming from his weight-training injury was not precluded by the assumption-of-risk doctrine.

 

You might also like
Criteria for Setting Aside a Foreclosure Sale Explained—Not Met Here
Gifts from One Spouse to the Other Are Marital Property Subject to Equitable Distribution
Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Cause of Her Fall Without Resorting to Speculation
Injury Caused by Lifting a Heavy Beam Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1), Despite the Fact the Beam Was Resting on an Elevated Scaffold
THE ATTORNEY’S “CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION” DID NOT INCLUDE SUFFICIENT DETAIL ABOUT THE ATTORNEY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPANISH LANGUAGE; THEREFORE THE TRANSLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE HAD ENOUGH CAUSE FOR A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY BUT DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED, FRISKED AND BROUGHT TO THE GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
THE NYPD IS A DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY AND CANNOT BE SEPARATELY SUED; THE 42 USC 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT ALLEGATIONS OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CITY CUSTOM OR POLICY; THE OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY FALL BECAUSE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S ARREST AND THE FORCE USED BY THE POLICE WAS NOT EXCESSIVE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL-GROUNDS-PROXIMITY-RESIDENCE PROHIBITION APPLIED TO PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING PAROLED WAS BURGLARY; SECOND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE BY THE THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS; APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (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

SIX TO TWELVE INCHES OF SNOW FELL OVERNIGHT AND PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AT... DRIVER PURCHASED A GOODYEAR TIRE FOR HIS FORD FROM US TIRES, A NEW YORK CORPORATION;...