You are here: / / ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY TO STUDENT-ATHLETE’S PARTICIPATION I...
,

ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY TO STUDENT-ATHLETE’S PARTICIPATION IN UNSUPERVISED “HORSEPLAY;” SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff student was injured when, during an unsupervised period of time prior to the beginning of football practice, a blocking sled was being misused to catapult players into the air. Plaintiff fractured both wrists. The Second Department held there was a question of fact re: the negligent supervision cause of action, and further held that the assumption of risk defense did not apply to the “horseplay” which resulted in plaintiff’s injury. With regard to assumption of the risk, the court wrote:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is most persuasively justified for its utility in facilitating ” free and vigorous participation in athletic activities'” … . By placing the risk of participation on the participants themselves, rather than on the sponsor, the doctrine encourages sponsorship, which leads to more opportunities to participate in sports or other recreational activities … . The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not applicable to the conduct at issue in this case. …[T]he use of the blocking sled to catapult each other into the air is not the sort of “socially valuable voluntary activity” that the doctrine seeks to encourage … . Furthermore, the defendants did not establish that the commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of football generally and flow from such participation on the football team included the risk of sustaining injury after being catapulted through the air by a blocking sled … . Duffy v Long Beach City Sch. Dist.. 2015 NY Slip Op 09065. 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATIION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF STUDENTS)/NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, SCHOOL SPORTS, HORSEPLAY)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (STUDENTS)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (SCHOOL SPORTS, HORSEPLAY)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HORSEPLAY)

You might also like
CITY, AS THE OWNER OF THE MARINA WITH RIPARIAN RIGHTS, WAS ENTITLED TO EJECT DEFENDANTS WHO WERE USING AN INOPERABLE VESSEL AS A HOUSEBOAT DOCKED AT THE MARINA (SECOND DEPT).
The Second of Two Ceremonial Marriages Is Presumed Valid/Property Owned by Persons Not Legally Married, But Who Are Described as Married in the Deed, Own the Property as Tenants In Common with Right of Survivorship Pursuant to the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL)
Criteria for Amending a Complaint to Replace “John Does” with Named Defendants Explained
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AS REQUIRED BY UCC 3-202 (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141 BY MAKING A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, DEFENDANT AVERRED PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING TOO FAST, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE NOTE WAS NOT PROPERLY ENDORSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO GRANT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE GIVEN AN INTERROGATORY ON THE THEORY THE SURGEON IMPROPERLY PERFORMED A PROCEDURE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR ( SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WHEEL STOP IN PARKING LOT WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS ... CITY (NYC), NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING SIDEWALK HYDRANT...