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.
Keishonna GAMBLE, etc., et al., Respondents, v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated June 14, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The infant plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell on a crack in the surface of a basketball court while playing basketball. By 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 which flow from such participation (see, Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 484-486, 662 N.Y.S.2d 421, 685 N.E.2d 202). Application of the doctrine of assumption of the risk requires not only knowledge of the injury-causing defect, but also, appreciation of the resultant risk. Awareness of risk, however, is not to be determined in a vacuum (see, Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 278, 496 N.Y.S.2d 726, 487 N.E.2d 553). Rather, it is to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff (see, Maddox v. City of New York, supra, at 278, 496 N.Y.S.2d 726, 487 N.E.2d 553; Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 439, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49, 502 N.E.2d 964; Morgan v. State of New York, supra, at 486, 662 N.Y.S.2d 421, 685 N.E.2d 202; Pascucci v. Town of Oyster Bay, 186 A.D.2d 725, 588 N.Y.S.2d 663). Furthermore, the doctrine encompasses risks associated with the construction of the playing field, and any open and obvious conditions thereon (see, Maddox v. City of New York, supra; Paone v. County of Suffolk, 251 A.D.2d 563, 674 N.Y.S.2d 761).
Here, the crack in the surface of the basketball court was open, obvious, clearly visible, and known to the infant plaintiff. In addition, contrary to the Supreme Court's conclusion, the infant plaintiff had the necessary skill and experience to appreciate the risk presented by the crack. Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: March 05, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)