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.
Patricia J. GERN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Christina BASTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when defendant collided with her while they were skiing. Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “[B]y engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” (Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 484, 662 N.Y.S.2d 421, 685 N.E.2d 202, rearg. denied 90 N.Y.2d 936, 664 N.Y.S.2d 274, 686 N.E.2d 1369). “The risk of injury caused by another skier is an inherent risk of downhill skiing” (Zielinski v. Farace, 291 A.D.2d 910, 911, 737 N.Y.S.2d 199, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 612, 749 N.Y.S.2d 4, 778 N.E.2d 555; see Kaufman v. Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, 240 A.D.2d 371, 372, 657 N.Y.S.2d 773, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 805, 668 N.Y.S.2d 560, 691 N.E.2d 632; Atwell v. State of New York, 229 A.D.2d 849, 850-851, 645 N.Y.S.2d 658). Defendant met her initial burden on the motion by submitting her deposition testimony in which she testified that, at the time of the collision, she was skiing at a moderate speed and was attempting to pass plaintiff at a safe distance of about six feet when plaintiff turned directly into her path. Defendant thereby established that she did not engage in “reckless, intentional, or other risk-enhancing conduct not inherent in the activity [of downhill skiing]” (Kaufman, 240 A.D.2d at 372, 657 N.Y.S.2d 773), and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact to defeat the motion (see Lamprecht v. Rhinehardt, 8 A.D.3d 448, 449, 778 N.Y.S.2d 310; see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a purported expert in opposition to the motion, which affidavit was conclusory and speculative (see Aungst v. Slippery Slats & All That, 6 A.D.3d 1078, 775 N.Y.S.2d 617).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 03, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 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)