NY Court: Lack of Protective Screen at Practice Doesn't Trigger Liability
In our earlier column "Split NY Appeals Court Finds School Pitcher Assumed Risk of Injury," we discussed how a divided appellate court held that despite several factors suggesting that the assumption of risk doctrine should not have served as an absolute bar to this school pitcher's injury claim, they ultimately concluded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the case.
Since it was a 3-2 split, however, the plaintiff was entitled to appeal to New York State's highest court as a matter of right (very few cases fall into this category).
So, how did the Court of Appeals rule?
In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the intermediate appellate court's decision, and upheld the decision dismissing the action. In truth, however, anyone reading between the opening lines of the court's decision could have foretold the conclusion:
"Almost every day, we are reminded of the injury risks attendant to participation in organized sports. The question presented in this personal injury action is whether a college baseball pitcher assumed the risk of injury associated with his participation in indoor practice."
After reading this blurb, you aren't exactly surprised the court dismissed this sports injury case, are you?
Post a comment
Post a Comment to "NY Court: Lack of Protective Screen at Practice Doesn't Trigger Liability"To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."