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.
Mark FINGUERRA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stephen CONN, et al., Defendants,
Summer Activities, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Jetline Products of Long Island, Inc., Fourth-Party Plaintiff, v. Cardinal Systems, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant. [And Other Actions].
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered January 4, 2000, which denied the motions by defendants Summer Activities, Jetline Products, Dover Vinyl Products, and fourth-party defendant Cardinal Systems, for summary judgment dismissing, inter alia, plaintiff's complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of appellants dismissing the complaint and the fourth-party complaint and all claims against them.
This court's prior determination (reported at 252 A.D.2d 463, 676 N.Y.S.2d 154), rejecting plaintiff's negligence claim against the owners of a swimming pool, on the basis that plaintiff's own reckless conduct in consuming alcoholic beverages and then diving into a section of the pool where the water was not deep enough to safely support his dive, even though he was familiar with the pool and its contours, was the proximate cause of his injuries, bars plaintiff's product liability claims against the non-owner defendants (see, People v. Evans, 94 N.Y.2d 499, 502, 706 N.Y.S.2d 678, 727 N.E.2d 1232). Under both negligence and product liability theories, plaintiff's reckless conduct was the proximate cause of his injuries, regardless of defective products or the pool owners' failure to warn potential users of the varying depths of the pool (see, Campbell v. Muswim Pools, Inc., 147 A.D.2d 977, 537 N.Y.S.2d 412, lv. denied, 74 N.Y.2d 608, 545 N.Y.S.2d 104, 543 N.E.2d 747; Belling v. Haugh's Pools Ltd., 126 A.D.2d 958, 511 N.Y.S.2d 732, lv. denied, 70 N.Y.2d 602, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1024, 512 N.E.2d 550).
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 22, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)