Boltax v. Joy Day Camp

490 N.E.2d 527, 67 N.Y.2d 617, 499 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16719
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 14, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by152 cases

This text of 490 N.E.2d 527 (Boltax v. Joy Day Camp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boltax v. Joy Day Camp, 490 N.E.2d 527, 67 N.Y.2d 617, 499 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16719 (N.Y. 1986).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a "plaintiff must generally show that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury” (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). When an intervening act also contributes to the plaintiff’s injuries, "liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence” (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d, at p 315, supra). Assuming for purposes of this motion for summary judgment that defendants’ alleged negligence— allowing trespassers to gain entry to the pool area and dangerously maintaining the pool by having it filled below capacity [620]*620and by placing a lifeguard chair near the pool’s shallow end— was a causative factor in plaintiff’s injuries, the reckless conduct of plaintiff, an adult experienced in swimming and knowledgeable about the general dangers of diving, who admitted his familiarity with the various water levels at each part of the pool, yet chose to dive head first from the lifeguard chair into shallow water, was an unforeseeable superseding event that absolves defendants of liability (see, Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 44, at 313-314 [5th ed 1984]; Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 ["foreseeability shall be a measure of (a landowner’s) liability”]). "[W]here only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts * * * the question of legal cause may be decided as a matter of law” (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., supra, at p 315).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Hancock, Jr., taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Myers v. Home Energy Performance by Halco
2020 NY Slip Op 06324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Bavisotto v. Doldan
2019 NY Slip Op 6247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Levine v. TD Bank, N.A.
2019 NY Slip Op 3960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Moscatiello v. Wyde True Value Lbr. & Supply Corp.
2019 NY Slip Op 269 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Mauro v. City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 7536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
BRADY, PETER C. v. DOMINO, MARY LOU
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Dawkins v. Mastrangelo
137 A.D.3d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Sang Woon Lee v. Il Mook Choi
132 A.D.3d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Machado v. Yacht Haven U.S.V.I., LLC
61 V.I. 373 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2014)
Achaibar v. City of New York
45 Misc. 3d 1036 (New York Supreme Court, 2014)
Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group Ass'n
859 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D. New York, 2012)
Cherrez v. Gonzalez
94 A.D.3d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
TKESHELASHVILI v. State of NY
960 N.E.2d 414 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
Tkeshelashvili v. State
71 A.D.3d 1318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Sweeney v. Bruckner Plaza Associates
57 A.D.3d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Pironti v. Leary
42 A.D.3d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Pelzer v. Transel Elevator & Electric Inc.
41 A.D.3d 379 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Thompson v. Town of Brookhaven
34 A.D.3d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Marchetti v. East Rochester Central School District
26 A.D.3d 881 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Lee v. New York City Housing Authority
25 A.D.3d 214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
490 N.E.2d 527, 67 N.Y.2d 617, 499 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boltax-v-joy-day-camp-ny-1986.