You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE...

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the benches near the field where plaintiff was playing football were open and obvious and plaintiff had assumed the risk of tripping over them:

​

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, “[i]f the risks of [a sporting] activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious to [a voluntary participant], he or she has consented to them and the [defendant] has discharged its duty of care by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be” … . “Risks inherent in a sporting activity are those which are known, apparent, natural, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation” … . “This includes risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it” …  “If the risks are known by or perfectly obvious to the player, he or she has consented to them and the property owner has discharged its duty of care by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be” … .

Here, according to the infant plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, there was nothing marking the area where the benches were located as the end zone, but if the ball was caught in the vicinity of the bench, the campers would consider that a touchdown. The infant plaintiff also testified that he flipped over one of the benches as he was running for a pass and that, prior to turning to catch the ball, he had run the full length of the field looking ahead toward the benches, which were situated alongside the volleyball courts. Consequently, the bench was open, obvious, clearly visible, and known to the infant plaintiff … . Since the infant plaintiff, who had been playing football on this field for more than an hour when the accident occurred, was aware of that condition and voluntarily chose to play on the field, he assumed the risk of injury of colliding into one of the benches when attempting to score … . E.B. v Achim, 2017 NY Slip Op 09115, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SPORTS, PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/SPORTS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
LESSEE DID NOT MOVE FOR A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION WITHIN THE CURE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT NO LONGER HAD JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT COMPLETED HIS SENTENCE HE IS ENTITLED TO A DETERMINATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; THE ORDER OF PROTECTION EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT (SECOND DEPT).
Transactional Res Judicata Analysis Explained
HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED SUCH THAT THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WOULD BE DEEMED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE BY A CORPORATION OWNED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AND WHOSE OFFICE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS A GUN FOUND IN A VEHICLE, THE COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL, THE SECOND DEPT DID NOT THEREFORE HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW THE ISSUE, MATTER SENT BACK SO SUPREME COURT CAN ARTICULATE ITS REASONING (SECOND DEPT).
HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TREATING EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN DID NOT DEPART FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF MEDICAL CARE; THE HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Vehicle On a Flatbed Tow Truck Is Not In “Use or Operation” Within Meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 388

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

DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DEPRESSION OR HOLE PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO,... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SAW WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE...