You are here: / / IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE (ATV) ACCIDENT CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF...

IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE (ATV) ACCIDENT CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK TO PLAINTIFF-PASSENGER THEREBY PRECLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSUMPTION-OF-THE-RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether assumption of the risk doctrine precluded plaintiff from recovery in this all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident case. There was a question whether the driver unreasonably increased the risk to plaintiff-passenger:

“Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity ‘consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation'” … . Participants, however, are not deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct or concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of the motion raised triable issues of fact as to whether the manner in which the decedent was operating the ATV unreasonably enhanced the risk of injury and whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies to this case … . Bulfamante v Bulfamante, 2025 NY Slip Op 02310, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Here there was no question that the assumption-of-the-risk doctrine could apply to plaintiff-passenger injured in an all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) accident.

Practice Point: Although the assumption-of-the-risk doctrine could apply to the plaintiff-passenger in this ATV accident case, there was a question of fact whether the doctrine was precluded because the driver unreasonably increased the risk.

 

You might also like
DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, WHICH CONTRADICTED THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND MV-104 FORM, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT SIGNATORIES TO CONTRACTS WHICH REQUIRED ARBITRATION OF WAGE-UNDERPAYMENT ALLEGATIONS AND PLAINTIFFS DID NOT EXPLOIT THE BENEFITS OF THE CONTRACTS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).
REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Transit Authority Not Liable Under the Emergency Doctrine As a Matter of Law
UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT).
THE TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS’ FAILURE TO ISSUE A DECISION ON PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT AND AN AREA VARIANCE WITHIN THE 62 DAYS PRESCRIBED BY THE TOWN LAW WAS NOT A DENIAL BY DEFAULT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THE MATTER WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE “DEFAULT DENIAL” AND ORDERED THE TOWN TO ISSUE THE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FATHER WAS AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN AN ORDER THAT DIRECTED MOTHER TO “STAY AWAY” FROM FATHER AND CHILD; FATHER ASKED THE POLICE FOR HELP IN SERVING THE ORDER AND PICKING UP THE CHLID; MOTHER WOULD NOT LET THE POLICE INTO HER HOME; DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ADVISED THAT THE POLICE COULD NOT ENTER MOTHER’S HOME; THE NEXT DAY MOTHER MURDERED THE CHILD; THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIISMISSED; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY (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 DISMISSAL OF A FORELCOSURE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY... THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH EYE-PROTECTION EQUIPMENT WARRANTED SUMMARY...