You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER ZIP LINE WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER ZIP LINE WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE RISKS OF USING THE ZIP LINE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined questions of fact about whether a zip line was negligently constructed and whether the risks of using the zip line were obvious precluded summary judgment in favor of defendant. Defendant (Skoler) designed and built the zip line with plaintiff’s assistance. Plaintiff alleged the braking system did not work when he used the zip line and he was injured when he struck the end-point tree and fell off the seat onto a boulder:

Plaintiff concedes that, had he merely lost his grip and fallen off the seat while riding the zip line, he would be barred from recovery because that is an inherent risk of zip-lining. However, his claim is not that he fell victim to such a common hazard. Rather, it is that the zip line was negligently constructed by defendant and that he had no way of knowing that. A person cannot be said to have assumed the risk of being injured by faulty equipment when he was unaware that the equipment was faulty … .

The record is replete with facts that prevent us from determining, as a matter of law, that any risk encountered by plaintiff was inherent in zip-lining and not enhanced by Skoler’s negligence, or that it was, or should have been, obvious to plaintiff. Even in granting the motion, the motion court conceded that there was evidence that the brake malfunctioned. Indeed, plaintiff testified that he failed to slow down as Skoler had done only moments before, even though his ride was not otherwise any different from Skoler’s. Thus, we can assume for purposes of this motion that the brake failed … . Zelkowitz v Country Group, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05732, 1st Dept 8-4-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER ZIP LINE WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE RISKS OF USING THE ZIP LINE)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER ZIP LINE WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE RISKS OF USING THE ZIP LINE)/ZIP LINE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER ZIP LINE WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE RISKS OF USING THE ZIP LINE)

You might also like
NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission Had the Authority to Mandate the Use of a Particular Vehicle as a NYC Taxi
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEG OF A CLOTHING RACK IN A STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INCLUDE CITY, STATE AND/OR ZIP CODES OF THE CANDIDATES’ RESIDENCES DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS (FIRST DEPT).
REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST RESTAURANT FOR CHOKING ON A ONE INCH FISH BONE.
LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST STUDENTS OF COLOR AND SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT ARE NOT PENALTIES, INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE FOR PENALTIES DID NOT APPLY.
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT CONTESTING HIS CONSENT TO THE INTOXILYZER BREATH TEST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO RAISE THAT SAME SUPPRESSION ISSUE DURING TRIAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST 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

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE (PC) ORDER SETTING TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE WHICH DEVIATED... CRITERIA FOR ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT...