Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jonathan FINTZI, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, Ariel Fintzi, et al., Respondents, v. NEW JERSEY YMHA-YWHA CAMPS, Doing Business as Camp Nah-Jee-Wah, Appellant.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment granted. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
Plaintiff Jonathan Fintzi, age 10, participated in a relay race at a summer camp operated by defendant New Jersey YMHA-YWHA. The race occurred on a grass field marked off by four cones, and the field was wet due to morning humidity and fog. While running the course, Jonathan slipped and fell twice on the wet ground. On the second fall, he broke his arm. Supreme Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, with two Justices dissenting.
We agree with the dissenters below that merely allowing children to play on wet grass does not constitute negligent supervision (see, Sauer v. Hebrew Inst., 17 A.D.2d 245, 233 N.Y.S.2d 1008, affd. without opn. 13 N.Y.2d 913, 243 N.Y.S.2d 859, 193 N.E.2d 642). Organizers of sporting or recreational events owe a duty to exercise only reasonable care to protect participants “from injuries arising out of unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks” (Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650, 654, 543 N.Y.S.2d 29, 541 N.E.2d 29). Here, there is no evidence that the camp counselors increased the risk associated with the naturally and obviously damp field. To hold defendant liable in this situation would, as the dissenters observed, “so sterile camping * * * as to render it sedentary” (Sauer, supra, 17 A.D.2d, at 246, 233 N.Y.S.2d 1008). Accordingly, on record before us, we conclude as a matter of law that plaintiff's injury was not the consequence of a failed duty of care on the part of defendant.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted and certified question answered in the negative, in a memorandum.
MEMORANDUM.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY, ROSENBLATT and GRAFFEO concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 18, 2001
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)