Granted, as we wrote previously, "Play at Your Own Risk" may not always true under New York law.

But in order to clarify matters further, consider the following explicit exception to the rule: the doctrine of inherent compulsion.

"What's that?" you ask.

Basically, it means that if the plaintiff (such as a child) is compelled to participate in an activity - and feels that s/he has no choice in the matter, then the assumption of the risk doctrine will not apply. And the reason for this is relatively straightforward: assumption of the risk inherently calls for a voluntary assumption of the risk of the activity; therefore, it stands to reason that if the plaintiff is forced to perform the activity, a critical element to the assumption of risk defense is lacking.

Bringing this down to a practical level, in order to establish inherent compulsion, the plaintiff is required to prove the following:

(1) a direction by a superior to do the act; and, 
(2) "economic compulsion or other circumstance which equally impels the actor to comply with the direction given."
Jonathan Cooper
Connect with me
Non-Compete, Trade Secret and School Negligence Lawyer