You are here: / / INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING BECAUSE OF PEBBLES AND WET...
,

INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING BECAUSE OF PEBBLES AND WET GRASS ON THE SOCCER FIELD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined infant plaintiff assumed the risk of falling in a school pick-up soccer game. Plaintiff alleged he fell because of pebbles and wet grass on the playing field:

The infant plaintiff testified that he fell because of a combination of, among other things, pebbles on the field and wet and muddy grass. The infant plaintiff further testified that there were no puddles, and the grass was wet from the previous day’s rain and other students playing with water balloons on the field. However, neither the pebbles nor the wet grass described in this case presented a concealed or unreasonably increased risk beyond those inherent in the activity of outdoor soccer … , regardless of whether the wet grass was caused by rain or water balloons … . Furthermore, merely allowing children to play on a field with pebbles and wet grass does not constitute negligent supervision … .   To hold otherwise would effectively prohibit schools from utilizing outdoor playing fields … . C.P.G. v Uniondale Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 06512, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: Here the infant plaintiff assumed the risk of falling because of pebbles and wet grass on the soccer playing field.

 

You might also like
HERE THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD BECAME DORMANT WHEN DE NOVO PROCEEDINGS WERE STARTED BUT WAS REVIVED WHEN THE DE NOVO PROCEEDINGS WERE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS (SECOND DEPT).
Contractor Working for Tenant Could Not Impose Mechanic’s Lien on Property Owner; Owner Acquiesced In, But Did Not Affirmatively Consent to, Work
EMAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF PLAINTIFF’S PHD PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).
FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION DID NOT MEET PLEADING REQUIREMENTS.
ALTHOUGH THE EMERGENCY HAD DIMINISHED AND THE POLICE OFFICER HAD TURNED OFF HIS SIREN AND LIGHTS WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER WAS STILL ENGAGED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATION AND DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Disposing of Key Evidence Warranted Striking of Answer
Single Use of Vehicle to Carry Passengers “For Hire” Did Not Justify Excluding Vehicle from Coverage Under the “For Hire” Exclusion
THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE THE NECESSARY BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVITS; HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING (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

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECT A TYPO SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED... PLAINTIFF SUED AN ILLINOIS SCHOOL ALLEGING THAT THE ONLINE COURSES OFFERED BY...