You are here: / / Question of Fact Raised About Whether Release Signed in Anticipation of...
,

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Release Signed in Anticipation of a Skydiving Course Precluded Personal Injury Action

Plaintiff had signed a release of liability in connection with a one-hour skydiving course.  Before the course could be given, the plane crashed and plaintiff was injured.  In moving to dismiss the complaint, the defendants argued that General Obligations Law 5-326, which renders releases issued by “places of recreation” void, did not apply.  The motion court denied the motion to dismiss and the Fourth Department affirmed:

Defendants assert that section 5-326 does not apply here because [defendant] is an instructional facility, rather than a recreational facility. Where a facility is “used for purely instructional purposes,” section 5-326 is inapplicable even if the instruction that is provided relates to an activity that is recreational in nature … . “In assessing whether a facility is instructional or recreational, courts have examined, inter alia, the organization’s name, its certificate of incorporation, its statement of purpose and whether the money it charges is tuition or a fee for use of the facility” …. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, a court “may . . . consider affidavits and other evidentiary material to ‘establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action’ ” … We conclude that [defendant’s] facility is not used purely for instructional purposes based upon our review of [defendant’s] certificate of incorporation, including the statement of purpose contained therein; the services for which plaintiff paid a fee, i.e., whether she paid for a course of instruction or for use of the facilities; as well as the other evidence submitted by defendants. Thus, defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that General Obligations Law § 5-326 does not apply here …  and have failed to establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action. Tiede v Frontier Skydivers, Inc, CA 12-01861, 216, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

You might also like
FATHER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE WILLFULLY VIOLATED A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER, ALTHOUGH FATHER COMPLETED THE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION, THE APPEAL IS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF A CIVIL CONTEMPT FINDING (FOURTH DEPT).
Right of First Refusal Not Triggered by Partition Action
POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT).
THE APPLICABLE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION APPLIES TO MORE THAN JUST THE OBSTRUCTION OF PASSAGEWAYS; IT ALSO APPLIES TO BUILDING MATERIAL WHICH IS NOT PROPERLY STORED AND SECURED (AND FALLS); PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY SUBMITTING MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE SENTENCING COURT IN THE RELATED CRIMINAL CASE; THE RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF A MITIGATION REPORT WHICH IS DEEMED “CONFIDENTIAL” PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CONTEMPT APPLICATIONS IN THIS NEGLECT/CUSTODY PROCEEDING WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) Applied to the Driver of a Town Truck—The Driver Was Using a Plow to Remove Water and Debris from a Road—Because the Driver Was Acting On His Own and Had Not Been Assigned to Remove the Water and Debris, the Question Raised on Appeal Was Whether the Driver Was Doing “Work” within the Meaning of Section 1103 (b) such that the Statutory Standard, as Opposed to the Ordinary Negligence Standard, Applied

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

Car Dealership Was Not the Owner of a Car Lent to a Customer While Customer’s... 2 ½ Inch Drop in Pavement Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Loss of...