Court of Appeals – Primary assumption of the risk: Grady v. Chenango Valley Central School Dist., et al.

Listen to this article

New York State Court of Appeals

Primary assumption of the risk

Increased risk in sporting activity

Grady v. Chenango Valley Central School Dist., et al.

Secky v. New Paltz Central School Dist., et al.

Nos. 23 & 24

Judge Garcia

Background: Both plaintiffs sought to recover for injuries sustained during organized sports practices for high school athletic teams. They each appeal from orders granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

Ruling: In noting that the application of the assumption of risk doctrine results in two different outcomes, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in Secky, but reversed in Grady. The court noted that in Secky, the elimination of boundary lines in a basketball drill did not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of playing basketball. In Grady, the court held that the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact regarding the inherent risks of a particular drill during the baseball practice. The drill involved two balls being hit and thrown to different parts of the infield.

Case No 23: Robert A. O’Hare Jr. for the appellant; Giancarlo Facciponte for the respondents; Case No. 24: Steven A. Kimmel for the appellant; Christopher K. Mills for the respondents.

Oral argument video (23)

Oral argument video (24)

Transcript (23)

Transcripts (24)