Turcotte v. Fell
510 N.Y.S.2d 49, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 502 N.E.2d 964 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Participants in a sporting event are held to have consented to injury-causing events that are known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of participation. Consequently, co-participants and venue owners only owe a duty to avoid reckless or intentionally harmful conduct, not a duty to avoid ordinary negligence.
Facts:
- Ronald J. Turcotte was an experienced professional jockey with a 17-year career.
- On July 13, 1978, Turcotte was riding in a horse race at Belmont Park, a facility owned and operated by the New York Racing Association (NYRA).
- Another jockey, Jeffrey Fell, was riding a horse in the same race.
- Seconds after the race began, Fell's horse allegedly moved into Turcotte's path, causing Turcotte's horse to clip the heels of another horse, trip, and fall.
- The fall threw Turcotte to the ground, resulting in injuries that left him a paraplegic.
- Turcotte alleged that NYRA negligently maintained the track by improperly watering it, creating an unsafe "cupping" condition.
- Turcotte testified that "cupping" conditions were common on racetracks and that he had previously experienced them at Belmont Park and other tracks.
- Turcotte also acknowledged that horses bumping each other and moving between lanes are normal and inherent aspects of horse racing.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Ronald J. Turcotte and his wife sued jockey Jeffrey Fell, horse owner David P. Reynolds, and racetrack owner New York Racing Association (NYRA) in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term (the trial court).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants Fell and Reynolds, dismissing the complaint against them.
- The trial court denied defendant NYRA's subsequent motion for summary judgment.
- All parties appealed to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's orders, upholding the dismissal against Fell and Reynolds and the denial of summary judgment for NYRA.
- The Appellate Division granted leave for all parties to appeal its decision to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's 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 professional athlete's participation in a sporting event constitute consent to the risks inherent in the sport, thereby limiting the duty of care owed by a co-participant and the facility owner to refraining from reckless or intentionally harmful conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
Yes. A professional athlete's participation in a sport constitutes consent to the known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable risks of that sport, limiting the duty owed by others to a duty to avoid reckless or intentional conduct. The court reframed the doctrine of assumption of risk not as an absolute defense, but as a measure of the defendant's duty of care. This concept, known as 'primary' assumption of risk, survives the enactment of comparative fault statutes. By voluntarily participating in the dangerous sport of horse racing, Turcotte consented to the risks associated with it, including careless riding by a co-participant and common track conditions. Fell's alleged 'foul riding' did not rise to the level of intentional or reckless conduct, as it was part of the normal competitive jostling inherent in the sport. Similarly, the 'cuppy' track condition was a known and common risk of racing that Turcotte had experienced before, so NYRA did not breach its duty of care by failing to prevent it.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that in New York, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not an affirmative defense but rather defines the scope of the defendant's duty of care in the context of sporting events. It clarifies that this 'no-duty' rule survived the state's adoption of a comparative negligence statute. By setting the standard of care for co-participants and venue owners at refraining from reckless or intentional conduct, the decision makes it substantially more difficult for athletes to recover damages for injuries that are inherent consequences of their sport. This ruling provides a strong legal shield for sports organizations and participants against liability for injuries resulting from ordinary negligence during athletic competition.
Unlock the full brief for Turcotte v. Fell