You are here: / / Golfer Assumed the Risk of Tripping on Grate in Golf-Cart Path

Golfer Assumed the Risk of Tripping on Grate in Golf-Cart Path

The Second Department determined the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk precluded a suit by a golfer who tripped on a grate in a golf-cart path:

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant 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” … . Those risks include risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it … . Here, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied … . Simon  v Hamlet Windwatch Dev LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05855, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

You might also like
Criteria for a Change of Venue Not Met—Party Seeking Change Must First Demonstrate Existing Venue Is Improper
EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
Hospital Not Vicariously Liable for Acts of Non-Employee Midwife/Hospital May Be Liable for Staff’s Failure to Summon Obstetrician When Problems with the Birth Developed/Midwife’s Assistant, Who Worked Under the Supervision of the Midwife and Did Not Exercise Independent Judgment, Not Liable
THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BUT A STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK IN THE ON-COMING LANE WHILE ATTEMPTING A LEFT TURN IN AN INTERSECTION, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
THE ALLEGED MISPRESENTATION IN PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR CAR INSURANCE, I.E., THAT SHE LIVED IN NEW ROCHELLE AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE WHEN IN FACT SHE LIVED IN BROOKLYN AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE, WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN “MATERIAL” AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE INSURER HAD DENIED COVERAGE BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION; THE INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Emergency Doctrine Excused Police Officer’s Causing a Collision

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

Criteria for Granting Leave to Serve a Late Notice of Claim Explained Case Against Non-Debtor Not Entitled to Automatic Stay