Derosa v. U.S. Dredging Corp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Derosa v. U.S. Dredging Corp

215 A.D.2d 625, 628 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5458

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 22, 1995·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated January 24, 1994, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff, who had been drinking, dived or jumped from a wood piling located on the defendant’s property into shallow water, rendering him a quadriplegic. The record indicates that this area was well known as a local diving destination and that the plaintiff was familiar with the water depth of the area.

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The actions of the plaintiff, who was an experienced swimmer and diver and was familiar with the area, in diving headfirst into the shallow water was an unforeseeable superseding event absolving the defendant of liability (see, Boltax v Joy Day Camp, 67 NY2d 617; Valdez v City of New York, 148 AD2d 697). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated January 24, 1994, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff, who had been drinking, dived or jumped from a wood piling located on the defendant’s property into shallow water, rendering him a quadriplegic. The record indicates that this area was well known as a local diving destination and that the plaintiff was familiar with the water depth of the area.

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The actions of the plaintiff, who was an experienced swimmer and diver and was familiar with the area, in diving headfirst into the shallow water was an unforeseeable superseding event absolving the defendant of liability (see, Boltax v Joy Day Camp, 67 NY2d 617; Valdez v City of New York, 148 AD2d 697). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Derosa v. U.S. Dredging Corp, 215 A.D.2d 625, 628 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

215 A.D.2d 625 (Derosa v. U.S. Dredging Corp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related