Legal Opinion
Livshitz v. United States Tennis Ass'n National Tennis Center
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided June 13, 2003PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Charles J. Markey, J.
The issue tested in this case is the extent to which the assumption of risk doctrine will insulate a defendant from li*461ability where a plaintiff has paid for and is enrolled for instruction in a particular sport. Significantly, this case involves the doctrine of “secondary assumption of risk” — a doctrine that has never been discussed by name or analyzed in any reported New York State case.
Mila Livshitz is a 52-year-old real estate broker. Livshitz enjoyed playing tennis and did so sporadically over 20 years, primarily during the summer months.
Five…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Morgan v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Knight v. JewettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Maas v. Cornell UniversityNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Carlson-Subik v. SubikAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Storm v. NSL ROCKLAND PLACE, LLCSuperior Court of Delaware · 2005
- SIMONE PRYCE and DAVID PRYCE v. TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, d/b/a New York Sports ClubDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2021