Archive for the ‘Collision’ Category

Snowmobile Wins Again – Claims of Injured Ski Racer Survive Motion Based on Waiver and Assumption of Risk Statutes (CO)

October 29, 2015

Schlumbrecht-Muniz v. Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp. (Colorado)
(trial court disposition)

Plaintiff was a member of the Sarasota, Florida Ski Team.  She traveled to the Steamboat Springs Ski Resort in Colorado to participate in ski races.  After finishing her second race and exiting the race course, plaintiff skied down a trail and headed toward the ski lift.  She attempted to ski past the lift to a picnic area to meet up with other racers.  However, she collided with a snowmobile that was parked near the lift.  Plaintiff sued the ski resort alleging (1) common law negligence in parking the snowmobile in a dangerous, high-traffic area, and (2) negligence per se under the Colorado Ski Safety Act (“SSA”) by failing to mark and pad the snowmobile.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) that the exculpatory clause contained in the race participation agreement signed by the plaintiff prior to her participation barred the plaintiff’s claims, (2) the common law negligence claim was barred by the SSA (“no skier may make any claim against or recover from any ski area operator for injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing”), and (3) the negligence per se claim failed because the SSA does not apply under the circumstances (i.e., with regard to a parked snowmobile).

(more…)

Advertisements

A Racing Incident – Claims of Go Kart Driver Injured by Driver with Down Syndrome to be Decided by a Jury (NY)

August 20, 2015

Corneli v. Adventure Racing Co., LLC (New York)
(trial court disposition)

Plaintiff participated as driver in go kart activities at the defendant’s racing entertainment facility, and he was injured when his go kart was struck by the go kart operated by defendant C.S., a seventeen-year-old who suffered from Down’s Syndrome.  Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the facility, alleging that the facility was negligent in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance supervision, staff training and control of the go kart ride and in the supervision and control of C.S.  The lawsuit was also filed against C.S. for negligently operating and driving the go kart, and C.S.’s alleged mother and father for negligent entrustment and allowing C.S. to negligently operate the go kart in a dangerous manner.

The defendant go kart facility filed a motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of assumption of risk.  C.S.’s alleged mother and father filed cross-claims against the facility, and the mother and father filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that they were not responsible for C.S.’s conduct.  Plaintiff then filed his own motion for summary judgment.  The New York U.S. District Court addressed each motion in turn.
(more…)

Let It Snow – Triable Issue Existed as to Whether Nine Year Old That Collided with Snowmaking Machine Assumed the Risk (PA)

August 19, 2015

MD ex rel Mora-Dillon v. Ski Shawnee (Pennsylvania)
(trial court disposition)

Plaintiff was a nine year old girl that participated in a ski trip with her elementary school as a novice skier with no skiing experience other than three lessons.  As she was skiing down one of the slopes, she collided with a snowmaking machine, suffering several bone fractures and other injuries.  Plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the ski resort, contending that the resort failed to adequately place padding on the metal components of the snowmaking machine.  The ski resort filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it had no duty to protect plaintiff from the inherent risks associated with downhill skiing.  Defendant argued that even though plaintiff had no knowledge of the risk presented, the plaintiff implicitly assumed the risk of colliding with snowmaking equipment, negating any duty it had to plaintiff. (more…)

Feel the Burn – “Boot Camp” Participant Injury Claim Barred (NY)

July 24, 2015

Alonge v. Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. (New York)

The plaintiff participated in a “boot camp” exercise program for approximately a year.  During one of the group exercise programs, another participant ran into her, causing her personal injury.  Plaintiff sued that defendant operator of the camp, alleging negligence.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on primary assumption if risk.  The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court affirmed the decision, finding that the plaintiff had observed “the open and obvious risk of running into participants in the class during drill exercises, and after fully appreciating the risk of colliding with other participants, plaintiff nonetheless elected to participate in the activity, thereby assuming the risk that resulted in her injuries.”

Cleanup in Aisle 5 – Child Injured on Bicycle Inside Wal-Mart; Store Not Liable (MS)

July 23, 2015

Wilson ex rel. Purser v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Mississippi)

A step-father and his two minor boys visited a Wal-Mart store in Batesville, Mississippi looking to purchase a basketball.  While the step-father was paying for the basketball, the two boys started looking at bicycles.  Both boys got on bicycles that had been on the bicycle racks and began riding up and down the nearby aisles.  During the ride, one of the boys was riding fast and could not figure out how to stop.  He tried to brake using the pedals, but the bike only had handbrakes.  The boy ran into a wall and cut his leg on a shelf.  “The employee assigned to the department was outside at the time of the accident, and no signs were posted prohibiting the use of the bicycles or otherwise warning of any danger.”

The boys’ mother filed a lawsuit on behalf of her injured child, contending that Wal-Mart was negligent by failing to keep the premises reasonably safe and failing to warn of the danger posed by the bikes.  Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not show the existence of a dangerous condition.  The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider.  Plaintiff’s motion was denied, and an appeal was filed.

On appeal, plaintiff argued that “whether an unlocked or readily available bicycle on the sales floor constituted a dangerous condition was a genuine issue of material fact that should have been submitted to a jury.”  However, the Court disagreed, affirming the trial court decision.

No Brakes – Village Not Responsible for Injuries to Woman Injured at the Bottom of Sledding Hill (NY)

June 24, 2015

Vannatta v. Village of Otisville (New York)

A woman was standing at the bottom of a hill in an area of village-owned park.  The area was not maintained by the village and was left in its natural state.  The hill had been used for sledding for approximately 50 years, and the woman had walked with her son to the hill to take him sledding.  As she was standing at the bottom of the hill, she was struck by someone coming down the hill.  She filed and action against the village claiming that it “failed to install and maintain proper signage or to employ personnel to prevent [or] safely restrict access to and use of the park and hill or to warn users, including pedestrians such as the Plaintiff, of dangers to such pedestrian users inherent in or incident to the use of the park and hill by others who may be using the park and hill for sleigh riding or similar recreational activities.”

The defendant moved for summary judgment under the New York General Obligations Law Section 9-103, which provides immunity “to private as well as government landowners against claims for ordinary negligence brought by members of the public who come on their property to engage in certain enumerated activities where the land is suitable for those activities.”  The trial court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed.  On appeal, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court agreed that the statute applied and affirmed the trial court ruling, entering judgment for the defendant.

Iced Out – Claim by Skier Who Lost Control Due to Icy Conditions Barred (PA)

June 22, 2015

Smith-Wille v. Ski Shawnee, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
(trial court disposition)

Plaintiff was skiing at the defendant’s ski resort when she encountered icy conditions, causing her to lose control and run into unpadded PVC piping holding a vinyl fence on the ski slope.  Plaintiff suffered personal injury and filed an action against the resort, claiming that there should have been a warning as to the icy conditions.   The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the accident was the result of the inherent risk of skiing.  In opposition to the motion, plaintiff asserted that there were no warnings of the slope conditions that would have allowed her to decide whether or not to proceed in skiing (i.e., she could not assume a risk of which she was not aware).  Plaintiff stated that “her conduct in skiing down the hill in the icy conditions was not voluntary, and that she could not have assumed the risk of any dangerous conditions on the slopes once there was no way to avoid those conditions, namely the ice.”  Plaintiff further contended that she was not adequately warned or the pole or the fencing that she ran into during the incident.

The Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania referred to the Pennsylvania Skiers Responsibility Act (“Act”), which was part of Pennsylvania’s comparative negligence statute.  In the Act, the Pennsylvania General Assembly recognized that there were “inherent” risks in the sport of downhill skiing, although those risks were not defined.  The Court concluded that “ice and icy conditions are part of the ‘inherent risks’ envisioned by the General Assembly.”  As such, the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty to protect the plaintiff from those conditions.  The Court also pointed out that “from a practical standpoint . . . it would be virtually impossible for a ski area to warn of icy conditions wherever and wherever they may exist.”  Finally, the Court stated that the defendant did not owe a duty to provide plaintiff with an alternate route down the slope.

The Court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the defendant.

Foul on the Defense – Basketball Rec League Waiver Void Under New York Statute (NY)

June 12, 2015

(photo by Dave Lindblom; unchanged)

Falzone v. City of New York (New York)

Plaintiff paid a fee to register to play in a recreation basketball league.  The league then paid the defendant New York City Department of Eduction a portion of the league registration fees for a permit in order to use a public school gymnasium.  During a game at the facility, the plaintiff was injured when his hand went through the glass window of a door that was behind one of the basketball hoops.  Plaintiff then filed an action against the City of New York and the Department of Education.  After initially responding, the defendant filed a motion for leave to amend their answer to add the affirmative defense of release and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The trial court granted both motions and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court determined that the trial court had properly granted the City of New York’s motion to dismiss in that it did not operate, maintain, or control the school premises.  As to the motion by the Department of Eduction to add the affirmative defense of release, the Court reversed the decision.  the Court explained that “[a]lthough leave to amend a pleading should be freely given [citation omitted], a court should deny a motion for leave to amend if the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient, would prejudice or surprise the opposing party, or is patently devoid of merit.”  The Court noted that the proposed amendment regarding the affirmative defense of release was “devoid of merit.”  The plaintiff had signed a “Player Waiver, Release of Liability and Indemnification Agreement” prior to his participation in the basketball league, but he paid a league fee to use the gymnasium and the payment of the fee rendered the waiver and release agreement void pursuant to New York General Obligations Law Section 5-326.  Under Section 5-326, every agreement in connection with a place of recreation in which the owner or operator receives a fee for the use of such facilities that exempts the owner or operator from liability for damages resulting from the negligence of the owner or operator is deemed void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.

Reckless Abandon – Allegations of Recklessness and Punitive Damages Survive in Ski Collision Case (PA)

June 11, 2015

Doyle v. Dianna (Pennsylvania)
(trial court disposition)

The plaintiff was skiing with his son in a highly congested area of a ski resort when he was struck by the defendant who was “allegedly skiing abnormally fast, out-of-control, recklessly” and who became airborne such that he was unable to slow down, stop, or avoid the impact.  Plaintiff filed an against against the defendant skier alleging that he acted recklessly and should be liable for punitive damages.  The defendant moved to strike both the references to “recklessness” and the punitive damages claim from the complaint.

Reviewing the applicable standards under Pennsylvania law, the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania denied the defendant’s motion.  The defendant had argued that the complaint lacked specificity to support an allegation of reckless conduct, but the court disagreed, noting that in Pennsylvania “recklessness is a condition of the mind that may be averred generally.”

With regard to the claim for punitive damages, the court stated that it “must be supported by evidence sufficient to establish that (1) a defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed and that (2) he acted, or failed to act, as the case may be, in conscious disregard of that risk.”  The court then concluded that the plaintiff alleged facts that, if true, were sufficient justify punitive damages.  Plaintiff had alleged:

“Defendant knew he was skiing in an area that ‘is generally highly congested … with other skiers.’ [Citation omitted.]  The Plaintiffs further aver that the Defendant was (a) skiing at an abnormally high rate of speed, (b) jumping and/or becoming airborne ‘rendering himself completely out-of-control and unable to change his course of direction,’ and (c) that he knew that he would not be able to stop in an emergency situation due to the conditions of the area.”

Yellow Flag – Amusement Park Go-Kart Operator Not Liable for Injury from On-Track Collision (TX)

June 3, 2015

Weaver v. Celebration Station Properties, Inc. (Texas)

Kerri Weaver (“Weaver”) and her three children visited the defendant’s amusement park in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  Weaver took one of her children on a go-kart ride at the facility and was involved in an on-track incident.  Another driver bumped Weaver’s go-kart, causing Weaver to suffer a heel fracture.  Weaver filed a state court action in Texas, alleging defendant’s “negligent failure to inspect the amusement area, adequately warn customers not to bump into other go-karts, train and supervise its employees, and instruct and train go-kart drivers, caused her injury.”  Additionally, Weaver filed a claim on behalf of her minor child for “bystander suffering.”  The defendant timely removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and, after discovery, moved to summary judgment, “arguing that it owed Weaver no duty to warn her about the open and obvious risks inherent in go-kart racing and, in any event, did not breach that duty.”

In opposition to the motion, Weaver argued that defendant “owed her a duty as a business invitee and breached this duty when it failed to guard against other reckless drivers.”  In her opposition, Weaver referred to her own deposition testimony and the deposition testimony of the defendant’s corporate representative.  However, Weaver failed to attach the deposition testimony to her opposition.  Defendant replied, reiterating its previous arguments and citing Weaver’s failure to attach the evidence.  Weaver filed a surreply, attaching the documents she failed to submit earlier, and the defendant moved to strike the surreply.

(more…)