By Holt Hackney
A New York state appeals court has reversed a trial court order and granted summary judgment to the NCAA, holding that a collegiate lacrosse player’s concussion-related injury claims were barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.
The court concluded that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the inherent risks of playing women’s collegiate lacrosse, including the risk of sustaining concussions, and that the NCAA neither concealed those risks nor unreasonably increased them through its rules or conduct.
The plaintiff, Samantha Greiber, was a collegiate lacrosse player who alleged that she suffered concussions during team practices in March 2013 and January 2014. According to the amended complaint, the first injury occurred when she was struck in the head by a lacrosse ball, and the second occurred when she collided with another player. On January 11, 2017, Greiber commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries against multiple defendants, including the NCAA. She alleged, among other things, that the NCAA failed to protect her from the risks of concussion associated with collegiate lacrosse and failed to implement adequate safety rules, including by maintaining a rule that prohibited the use of hard helmets in women’s lacrosse.
The NCAA moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the motion in an order entered December 3, 2021. The NCAA appealed, arguing that Greiber’s claims were barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk and that no triable issues of fact existed as to whether it had increased or concealed the risks inherent in the sport.
The Appellate Division began its analysis by reviewing the well-established principles governing primary assumption of risk in New York. Under that doctrine, a participant in a sport or recreational activity is deemed to have consented to commonly appreciated risks that are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport. Participants are considered to have assumed injury-causing events that are known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of participation.
However, the doctrine does not protect defendants from liability for unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks. Importantly, assumption of risk functions not as an absolute defense, but as a limitation on the defendant’s duty of care. In other words, if the risks are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, the defendant’s duty is satisfied.
Applying these principles, the court held that the NCAA established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In support of its motion, the NCAA submitted extensive documentary and testimonial evidence demonstrating that concussions are an inherent risk of women’s lacrosse and that the plaintiff was well aware of that risk. This evidence included NCAA concussion fact sheets provided to student-athletes, informed consent forms executed by Greiber that emphasized the seriousness of concussions, and NCAA rule books and sports medicine handbooks discussing concussion risks. The NCAA also submitted scientific studies and articles showing that concussions occur with some frequency in women’s lacrosse.
In addition, the NCAA relied on Greiber’s own deposition testimony, in which she acknowledged her awareness that women’s lacrosse players were at risk of suffering concussions. The amended complaint itself further supported the NCAA’s position, alleging that Greiber had played organized lacrosse since the age of seven, competed at the high school level, and was recruited to Hofstra University on an athletic scholarship specifically to play collegiate lacrosse. Based on this record, the court concluded that the NCAA demonstrated that it exercised ordinary reasonable care and did not expose the plaintiff to risks beyond those inherent in the sport.
The burden then shifted to Greiber to raise a triable issue of fact. The Appellate Division held that she failed to do so. The court rejected her argument that the NCAA unreasonably increased the risk of injury by maintaining a rule prohibiting hard helmets in women’s lacrosse. Citing recent Court of Appeals and Appellate Division precedent, the court explained that adherence to customary rules of a sport does not constitute an unreasonable increase in risk. There was no evidence that the NCAA’s rules were reckless or outside the norms of the sport, nor was there evidence that the NCAA concealed the risk of concussion from players.
The court also rejected Greiber’s reliance on the inherent compulsion doctrine, which can negate assumption of risk where a participant’s voluntariness is overcome by compulsion from a superior authority. Greiber testified that she was required to play lacrosse or risk losing her athletic scholarship. The court held that this testimony was insufficient to establish inherent compulsion, as the doctrine requires more than economic or practical pressure; it requires a level of coercion that effectively eliminates voluntary choice. As such, the doctrine did not apply.
Finally, the court emphasized that where a plaintiff has assumed the risk of an inherent injury, the defendant has no duty to protect against reasonably foreseeable injuries arising from that risk. Because Greiber knowingly and voluntarily participated in collegiate women’s lacrosse with full awareness of the risk of concussion, her claims against the NCAA could not survive summary judgment.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s order insofar as appealed from and granted the NCAA’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it, with costs. The decision reinforces the continued vitality of the primary assumption of risk doctrine in New York sports injury litigation, particularly in cases involving governing bodies and well-known risks inherent in competitive athletics.
Greiber v. National Collegiate Athletic Association; N.Y.S., the Appellate Division, Second Department; 12/3/25
