Welch v. Board of Education

272 A.D.2d 469, 707 N.Y.S.2d 506, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5562
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 469 (Welch v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Welch v. Board of Education, 272 A.D.2d 469, 707 N.Y.S.2d 506, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), entered April 29, 1999, which, upon the denial of its motion made at the close of evidence for judgment as a matter of law, and upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $48,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when he tripped over a cement mound while playing basketball at night on an unlit court. It is well settled that when an individual voluntarily participates in a sport or recreational activity, he or she consents to those commonly appreciated risks that are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from participation therein (see, Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471). This includes those risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it (see, Sykes v County of Erie, 94 NY2d 912; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270). In the instant case, by choosing to play basketball at night on an unlit court, the plaintiff assumed all the risks inherent in the activity, including his inability to detect what would otherwise be an open and obvious condition (see, Maddox v City of New York, supra; Colucci v Nansen Park, 226 AD2d 336). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion of the City of New York made at the close of evidence for judgment as a matter of law. Joy, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Philius v. City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 3161 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Siegel v. Albertus Magnus High School
2017 NY Slip Op 5991 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Tahsin Mamati v. City of New York Parks & Recreation
123 A.D.3d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Perez v. City of New York
118 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Wilck v. Country Pointe at Dix Hills Homeowners Ass'n
111 A.D.3d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Herman v. Lifeplex, LLC
106 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Mattas v. Town of Hempstead
106 A.D.3d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Viola v. Carmel Central School District
95 A.D.3d 1206 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Zachary G. v. Young Israel of Woodmere
95 A.D.3d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Krebs v. Town of Wallkill
84 A.D.3d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bendig v. Bethpage Union Free School District
74 A.D.3d 1263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Brookstone v. State
64 A.D.3d 1023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Lincoln v. Canastota Central School District
53 A.D.3d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Casey v. Garden City Park-New Hyde Park School District
40 A.D.3d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Yisrael v. City of New York
38 A.D.3d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Joseph v. New York Racing Ass'n
28 A.D.3d 105 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 A.D.2d 469, 707 N.Y.S.2d 506, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2000.