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.
DAWN M. CLOSE, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. DARIEN LAKE THEME PARK AND CAMPING RESORT, INC., DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that she sustained on a water ride in an amusement park owned by defendant. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant 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; see Anand v. Kapoor, 15 NY3d 946, 947–948; Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 439; Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 277–278). Awareness of the risk is “ ‘to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff’ “ (Morgan, 90 N.Y.2d at 486, quoting Maddox, 66 N.Y.2d at 278). Here, “defendant sustained its burden of proving its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ․ by presenting evidence that the plaintiff understood and voluntarily assumed the risks inherent in the activity at issue” (Leslie v Splish Splash at Adventureland, Inc., 1 AD3d 320, 321). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, she failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant engaged in reckless or intentional conduct or whether there existed a dangerous condition that concealed or unreasonably increased the risks of the ride (see Youmans v. Maple Ski Ridge, Inc., 53 AD3d 957, 959; see also Loewenthal v. Catskill Funland, 237 A.D.2d 262, 263–264).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 11–02220
Decided: June 08, 2012
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)