The “assumption of risk doctrine” relieves defendants of liability in many athletic or recreational activity cases where “a plaintiff who freely accepts a known risk commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him or her from the risk.”

However, in Braile v Patchogue Medford School District of Town of Brookhaven the doctrine did not apply.  There, the school soccer team had indoor practice since it was raining.  As part of practice, the coach had pairs of students run against each other in a school hallway.  The plaintiff raced down the hallway, but when she tried to slow down at the finish line, she was unable to stop, causing her to run into a brick wall at the end of the hallway.  Defendant moved for summary judgment based upon the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.  On appeal, the court denied defendant’s motion finding that while the plaintiff voluntarily participated on the soccer team, the defendant failed to establish that the commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of soccer generally and flow from such participation on the soccer team included the risks of running into a wall while racing in the school hallway.  The court held that, “in assessing whether a defendant has violated a duty of care within the genre of tort-sports activities and their inherent risks, the applicable standard should include whether the conditions caused by the defendants’ negligence are unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport.”

While the “assumption of risk doctrine,” is a valuable defense in sporting/athletic activity cases, it is not an automatic win.  The court will look at the totality of the circumstances, the specific situation as compared to the usual risks inherent to the activity.

For any questions about this post contact ">.