Court: Plaintiff Cannot Assume a Risk Which Is Not Inherent in the Activity or Which He Does Not Know

Jul 20, 2018

By James Moss
 
(Summary: This case looks at assumption of risk as a defense, when the risk assumed is not “visible” or known to the injured plaintiff. The plaintiff fell from a mobile climbing wall when the carabiner used in the belay detached. The defense of assumption of risk failed because the risk was concealed or unreasonably enhanced, according to the court.)
 
Facts
 
The defendant set up its mobile climbing wall at the Eden Corn Festival. While climbing the carabiner detached from the harness and the plaintiff fell 18 feet to the ground.
 
The climbing wall amusement attraction included a safety harness worn by the patron and a belay cable system that attached to the harness by use of a carabiner. There is no dispute that the carabiner detached from the safety harness worn by plaintiff, and that plaintiff fell approximately 18 feet to the ground below.
 
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on assumption of the risk and the defendant did not have any notice that the “defective” part of the wall was defective. What part of the wall that was defined as defective was never identified. The trial court denied the defendants motion and the defendant appealed.
 
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
 
Assumption of the risk in New York is a defense in athletic or recreational activities. If you engage in the activity, you assume the risks that are inherent in the activity.
 
The doctrine of assumption of the risk operates “as a defense to tort recovery in cases involving certain types of athletic or recreational activities” A person who engages in such an activity “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”
 
However, a plaintiff cannot assume risks that the plaintiff does not know about, that are concealed, or are created due to the reckless or intentional conduct of the defendant.
 
However, “participants are not deemed to have assumed risks resulting from the reckless or intentional conduct of others, or risks that are concealed or unreasonably enhanced”
 
However, the analysis the court used to deny the plaintiff’s motion was the defendant failed to prove that falling from a climbing wall was an inherent risk of climbing.
 
Here, we conclude that the court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion based on assumption of the risk inasmuch as it failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that the risk of falling from the climbing wall is a risk inherent in the use and enjoyment thereof
 
It seems to be confusing to say the risk of falling off a wall, suspended in the air is not obvious. However, this is a New York decision, which are always brief. Therefore, the statement of the court encompasses the real risk, that the carabiner or part of the system would fail allowing the plaintiff to fall.
 
More importantly, the plaintiff could not assume the risk of the carabiner failing because it is not an inherent risk of the sport and because there is no way the plaintiff could have known, seen, or discovered the risk.
 
So Now What?
 
The decision lacks more information than it provides. How did the carabiner become detached? Carabiners do not fail and there is nothing indicating the carabiner did fail. Consequently, either the carabiner was never attached properly or the plaintiff opened the carabiner.
 
The decision does follow other decisions like this in all other states. How it is explained is just a little confusing.
 
Stillman v Mobile Mountain, Inc.; New York, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department; 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4124; 2018 NY Slip Op 04149
 
For more on the author, visit https://recreation-law.com/author/jhmoss/


 

Articles in Current Issue