GRIFFIN v. LARDO (1998)

Plaintiff's 12–year–old daughter was injured in her backyard while showing 11–year–old defendant how to swing a golf club.   Neither child is an experienced golfer.   Plaintiff's daughter stood too close, and defendant struck her in the head with the club as he finished his swing.

 Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of assumption of risk.   The risk of the present injury is obvious, and, by voluntarily participating in the activity, plaintiff's daughter assumed the risk of injury despite her age and inexperience (see, Napoli v. Mount Alvernia, 239 A.D.2d 325, 657 N.Y.S.2d 197;  Cardoza v. Village of Freeport, 205 A.D.2d 571, 613 N.Y.S.2d 236;  Osborne v. Olean Bd. of Educ., 186 A.D.2d 1059, 588 N.Y.S.2d 489;  see also, Steegmuller v. Siegel, 202 A.D.2d 855, 609 N.Y.S.2d 359, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 760, 616 N.Y.S.2d 15, 639 N.E.2d 755).   It is irrelevant that plaintiff's daughter may not have anticipated the strength or width of defendant's swing.  “It is not necessary to the application of assumption of risk that the injured [person] have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” (Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 278, 496 N.Y.S.2d 726, 487 N.E.2d 553;  see, Swan v. Town of Grand Is., 234 A.D.2d 934, 935, 652 N.Y.S.2d 166).   Finally, we reject plaintiff's contention that defendant's conduct was reckless, thus rendering the assumption of risk doctrine inapplicable (see, Carrillo v. Kreckel, 43 A.D.2d 499, 352 N.Y.S.2d 730).

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: