THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE VIABILITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE AS IT APPLIES TO SCHOOL SPORTS; AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THE DOCTRINE SHOULD BE ABANDONED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over two dissenting opinions, one of which argued the implied assumption of risk doctrine should be abandoned, determined the dismissal of one of the school-sports-assumption-of-risk cases before it (Stecky) should be affirmed and the dismissal of the other (Grady) should be reversed because it raised unresolved questions of fact:

In Secky, the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies, and we affirm the Appellate Division order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, who had played basketball at the highest amateur student level, was injured during a drill in which the players competed to retrieve a rebound. Plaintiff’s coach had explained that the boundary lines of the court would not apply during the drill and that only major fouls would be called. At the time of the drill, bleachers stationed near the court were retracted. Plaintiff was injured when, pursuing a loose ball from the top of the key towards the bleachers, another player collided with him, causing plaintiff to fall into the bleachers and sustain an injury to his right shoulder. Plaintiff, through his mother, sued the coach and the school district, and defendants moved for summary judgment. * * *

… [P]laintiff’s injury is one inherent in the sport of basketball and so he assumed the risk of the injury he sustained. …

In Grady, by contrast, material issues of fact remain to be resolved by a jury. Plaintiff, a senior on the Chenango Valley High School varsity baseball team, was injured during his participation in a fast-moving, intricate drill. The drill involved two coaches hitting balls to players stationed in the infield, with one coach hitting to the third baseman, who would then throw to first base, while another coach hit to the shortstop, who would throw to the second baseman who would, in turn, throw to a player at “short first base,” positioned a few feet from regulation first base. Because the drill required baseballs from two parts of the infield to be thrown to two players in the same area by first base, the coaches had positioned a protective screen, measuring seven by seven, between the regulation first baseman and the short first baseman. Plaintiff, in the group of players assigned to first base, was injured when an errant ball, intended for the short first baseman, bypassed the short first baseman and the protective screen and hit him on the right side of his face, causing serious injury to his eye including significant vision loss. …

… [P]laintiff has raised triable questions of fact regarding whether the drill, as conducted here and with the use of the seven-by-seven-foot screen, “was unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent” in baseball … , and whether plaintiff’s awareness of the risks inherent in both the game of baseball and the practices that are a necessary part of participation in organized sports encompassed the risks arising from involvement in the drill performed here. Grady v Chenango Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 02142, CtApp 4-27-23

Practice Point: The majority rejected the dissenter’s argument that the assumption of risk doctrine should be abandoned.