Layden v. Plante
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtGarry, J.
The doctrine of assumption of risk provides that a person *1541who voluntarily participates in recreational or athletic activities is deemed to consent to the “commonly appreciated risk[s]” inherent in that activity (Anand v Kapoor, 15 NY3d 946, 948 [2010]; see Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]). However, a participant does not assume risks resulting from “a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers inherent in the activity” (Myers v Friends of Shenendehowa Crew, Inc., 31 AD3d 853, 854 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Custodi v Town of…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Morgan v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Gross v. SweetNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Custodi v. Town of AmherstNew York Court of Appeals · 2012
- Trupia v. Lake George Central School DistrictNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hope v. Holiday Mountain CorporationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Rose v. Tee-Bird Golf Club, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Dann v. Family Sports Complex, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Ward v. StewartDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2018
- Dann v. Family Sports Complex, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.