Morgan v. State
90 N.Y.2d 471, 685 N.E.2d 202, 662 N.Y.S.2d 421 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A participant in a voluntary sports activity assumes the inherent risks of that activity, which defines the scope of the facility owner's duty of care, precluding liability for injuries resulting from such risks; however, facility owners retain a duty to protect participants from concealed, unreasonably increased, or unique dangers over and above the usual inherent risks.
Facts:
- In 1986, Daniel Morgan, an experienced bobsledder, was driving a two-person bobsled during a national championship race at the Mt. Van Hoevenberg Bobsled Run when he made a steering error, causing the sled to tip over.
- His teammate fell out, leaving Morgan alone in the sled, which slid down the course on its side and was righted after crossing the finish line, but Morgan was unable to slow the sled.
- The sled rode up a left wall of the exit run, went through a 20-foot opening, and crashed into a concrete abutment.
- The Mt. Van Hoevenberg course, originally built in 1932, was renovated in 1979 under the oversight and approval of the Federatione Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobaganning (FIBT), an organization regulating the sport.
- As part of the reconstruction, the exit chute included a 20-foot opening in the concrete wall to facilitate the rapid removal of sleds during competition, as required by the FIBT.
- In 1992, plaintiff Beck, a 30-year-old orange belt student with 15 months of experience, was injured while attempting a "jump roll” tumbling technique over an obstacle during a karate class, where the obstacle was set at a higher height than he had previously attempted.
- The defendant instructor-owner left the classroom, placing a 15-year-old, highest-ranking student in charge, who then raised the obstacle's height.
- In 1992, plaintiff Chimerine injured her knee while attempting a "jumping” or "hopping” kick maneuver during her fourth class at the defendants’ martial arts training school, after seeing the instructor and classmates perform it.
- In 1992, plaintiff Siegel, a 60-year-old, tripped while playing tennis at Paerdegat Racquet Club, an indoor facility in Brooklyn, snagging his foot in a torn vinyl hem at the bottom of a net dividing the indoor tennis courts.
- Siegel had been a club member for 10 years and had known for over two years that the side divider net was ripped, and other club members had informed management of the problem.
Procedural Posture:
- In Morgan v State of New York, Daniel Morgan, claimant, sued the State of New York, defendant, in the New York Court of Claims (trial court).
- The Court of Claims held the State liable for Morgan’s injuries and ordered a trial on damages.
- The State of New York, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court), which modified and dismissed Morgan's claim.
- Morgan, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (highest court).
- In Beck v Scimeca, Beck, plaintiff, sued Scimeca, defendant, in Supreme Court (trial court).
- Defendant Scimeca moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, which Supreme Court granted.
- Beck, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.
- Beck, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (highest court).
- In Chimerine v World Champion John Chung Tae Kwon Do Inst., Chimerine, plaintiff, sued the defendants in Supreme Court (trial court).
- Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
- Chimerine, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.
- Chimerine, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (highest court).
- In Siegel v City of New York, Siegel, plaintiff, sued the City of New York and Paerdegat Racquet Club, defendants, in Supreme Court (trial court).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, which Supreme Court granted, dismissing the complaint.
- Siegel, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.
- Siegel, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a facility owner or operator owe a duty of care to a voluntary participant in an athletic activity for injuries sustained from risks inherent in the sport, or from conditions that are concealed, unreasonably increased, or unique dangers beyond those inherent risks, thus precluding summary judgment based on assumption of risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Bellacosa, J.
Yes, a facility owner or operator owes a duty of care to a voluntary participant for injuries sustained from conditions that are concealed, unreasonably increased, or unique dangers beyond those inherent risks, precluding summary judgment based on assumption of risk. However, for injuries arising from risks truly inherent in the sport, where the participant has knowledge and appreciation of those risks, no duty is owed, and summary judgment is appropriate. The Court of Appeals considered four cases to clarify the duty of care owed by owners and operators of athletic facilities to voluntary participants under the assumption of risk doctrine, especially in light of New York’s comparative negligence statute (CPLR 1411). The Court affirmed the dismissals in Morgan, Beck, and Chimerine, finding that the injured parties assumed the inherent risks of their respective activities. Conversely, it reversed the dismissal in Siegel, holding that a separate duty remained operative, precluding summary judgment. The Court reaffirmed that assumption of risk, as applied to voluntary sports participants, defines the defendant's duty of care rather than serving as a complete bar to recovery under contributory negligence (citing Turcotte v Fell). Participants consent to "commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally." For the doctrine to apply, the consenting participant must be aware of the risks, appreciate their nature, and voluntarily assume them. An owner's duty is "to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be." If risks are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, the defendant has performed its duty. This policy aims to "facilitate free and vigorous participation in athletic activities" (Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ.). However, participants do not assume risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or "concealed or unreasonably increased risks" (Benitez). The applicable standard is whether conditions caused by defendant's negligence are "unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport" (Owen v R.J.S. Safety Equip.). Awareness of risk is assessed against the plaintiff's skill and experience (Maddox v City of New York, Turcotte, Benitez). Applying these principles: (1) Morgan: An experienced bobsledder thoroughly familiar with the course; the exit wall opening did not create additional risks beyond those inherent in a high-speed, dangerous sport, and the design was approved by FIBT. His injury resulted from inherent dangers. (2) Beck: A 30-year-old orange belt assumed the risk of landing incorrectly while attempting a "jump roll" he had performed before, even at a higher obstacle height of which he was aware. Leaving a 15-year-old student temporarily in charge of routine exercises was not, without more, a basis for negligence. (3) Chimerine: Despite only four classes, a reasonable person would know that a basic hopping/jumping kick carries a risk of losing balance and injury; the maneuver was not unreasonably risky. (4) Siegel: The torn net separating tennis courts, while part of the facility, was not "inherent" in the game of tennis itself. A damaged net may constitute a negligent condition related to property maintenance, falling outside the inherent risk category. Therefore, a duty to maintain the net in good repair continued, and comparative negligence principles might apply, precluding summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the application of the assumption of risk doctrine in New York following the adoption of comparative negligence. It firmly establishes that assumption of risk, in this context, functions as a "no-duty" principle, defining the scope of a defendant's duty rather than an affirmative defense to be weighed against a plaintiff's fault. By distinguishing between risks inherent in a sport and those created by negligent maintenance or unreasonably increased dangers, the Court provides a framework for courts to determine when summary judgment is appropriate, thus influencing how premises liability claims for athletic injuries are litigated. This ruling encourages participation in sports by shielding facilities from liability for truly inherent risks while still holding them accountable for failures in maintaining reasonably safe conditions that are not integral to the sport itself.
