In New York,  a voluntary participant in a recreational activity assumes the risks inherent with such activity, and the assumption of risk doctrine will apply as an absolute bar to liability where the participant is aware of the risks, has an appreciation of the nature of the risks, and voluntarily assumes the risk. In addition, courts will grant judgment in favor of the defendant where the alleged injuries arise out of the inherent risks associated with that activity.

In the case of Litz v. Clinton Central School District,  plaintiff, a high school student, was in the locker room following hockey practice. Plaintiff was walking barefoot toward the shower area when one of his teammates stepped backwards onto his right foot. Plaintiff’s teammate was still wearing his hockey skates at the time of the accident. Plaintiff sued the school district, the coaches and his teammate, and the defendants moved for summary judgment alleging that plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risks associated with the sport of hockey. The trial court awarded summary judgment in the defendants’ favor and plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the assumption of the risk did not apply because he was no longer playing hockey at the time of his injury. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department,  noted that the accident occurred at the facility where hockey practice took place and immediately following practice. The players all used the locker-room where the accident occurred to store their equipment including the skates. Plaintiff testified that he always walked around the locker room with bare feet when he did not have his skates on, and he acknowledged that he was “aware of the need to be careful walking with people still having skates on in the locker room.”

Based upon those facts, the Court concluded that plaintiff was still “involved” or “participating” in the sport of hockey at the time of his injury and that the assumption of risk doctrine applies to any facet of the inherent activity. The Fourth Department also determined that the defendants met their burden of establishing that the risk of being injured by a skate blade is “inherent in the sport” of hockey and that the plaintiff was aware of, appreciated the nature of, and voluntarily assumed that risk.

Thanks to Jorgelina Foglietta for her contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono for more information.