Majority
By engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation (see Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471 , 484-486 [1997]; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432 , 439 [1986]; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270 , 277-278 [1985]). Participants properly may be held to have consented, by their participation, to those injury-causing events which are known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of participation, but not to unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks (see Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650 , 658 [1989]; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d at 439 ; Weller v Colleges of the Senecas, 217 AD2d 280 , 283 [1995]).
Here, the defendant failed to satisfy its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Schmidt v Massapequa High School, 83 AD3d 1039 [2011]; Hubbard v East Meadow Union Free School Dist., 277 AD2d 353 [2000]). Although being struck with a passed ball is a known risk inherent in the sport of lacrosse (see Godwin v Russi, 62
Cases cited
- Morgan v. State 90 NY2d 471 at 484-486 p. 805
- Turcotte v. Fell 68 NY2d 432 at 439 p. 805
- Maddox v. City of New York 66 NY2d 270 at 277-278 p. 805
- Benitez v. New York City Board of Education 73 NY2d 650 at 658 p. 805
- Weller v. Colleges of Senecas 217 AD2d 280 at 283 p. 805
- Schmidt v. Massapequa High School 83 AD3d 1039 p. 805
- Fithian v. Sag Harbor Union Free School District 54 AD3d 719 at 720 p. 806
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center 64 NY2d 851 at 853 p. 806