Assumption of Risk Doctrine Bars New York Sports Injury Lawsuits - Part 1

"School's Open" say the signs all over the roadways every September. "Drive Carefully," they say.

Perhaps they should also say "Play Carefully."

Every year, students at schools get injured in sporting events and every year their parents start lawsuits for them. More and more, though, these cases are dismissed by trial judges without even proceeding to trial. We've discussed assumption of risk defenses in New York injury cases before, here in the context of fights at school and skydiving and here and here in the context of golf-related accidents. We've also surveyed some unusual sports-related cases here.

The most recent New York injury cases involving these issues are discussed below, along with another case that, while not on school grounds, involves a soccer injury that is apropos.

Floor Hockey: A high school boy was injured in a floor hockey game in physical education class when he fell over his opponent's hockey stick as they were both trying to take control of the puck.

The trial judge dismissed the case and the appeals court upheld the dismissal in Mayer v. Gulmi. Plaintiff was found to have assumed the risk of falling, an incident everyone knows happens all the time in floor hockey. His claim that his opponent intentionally threw his stick at him would, if proven, have allowed the case to be presented to a jury but there was not enough reliable evidence to support that claim and avoid having the case tossed.

Wrestling: A high school wrestler contracted herpes while participating in a match against another school. The trial judge denied the motion by the two school districts to have the case dismissed without a trial but the appeals court reversed. In Farrell v. Hochhauser, it was held that the plaintiff knowingly engaged in a close contact activity (wrestling) and he therefore assumed the risk of a disease being transmitted through skin to skin contact.

Additionally, plaintiff's coach submitted an affidavit stating that before the season he:

  1. gave all of his wrestlers and their parents written information about how common it is to contract herpes from wrestling (almost 30%) and
  2. discussed all of this with his team and the boys' parents

While plaintiff and his father said they did not recall this information being given to them, they could not be sure it wasn't. That, the appeals judges said, was not enough to avoid dismissal of this case.

Soccer: A spectator at a soccer game was standing in the field's sideline area when she was kicked by a player who was trying to kick a ball that had rolled off the field.

The plaintiff suffered a broken ankle requiring surgery and in her lawsuit she claimed that the defendant (the athletic complex owner) should have created a buffer zone to protect sideline spectators. No, said the judge in Andrade v. Nassau County. The plaintiff assumed the risk of this injury by standing where she did when she could have watched from seats available in the stands. Case dismissed.

We will continue our review of sports injury cases and how assumption of the risk bears upon their outcome in court with our next installment that will deal with our national pastime - baseball.

 

 

$575,000 for Ankle Injuries

In Pryce v. County of Suffolk, New York's appellate court which handles appeals from Long Island as well as Westchester and nearby counties, the Appellate Division Second Department, upheld a jury's $575,000 pain and suffering award for a 63 year old maintenance man who fractured his ankle after stepping off a county bus and being struck by another vehicle.

The plaintiff suffered open comminuted fractures of the distal portions of his left leg's tibia, extending into the lateral portion of the ankle joint.

He had to undergo open reduction internal fixation surgery (surgical repair of fractured bones using hardware such as plates, screws and rods)  and the application of an external fixation device. Also, he had to have the fixation device removed surgically and he underwent four weeks of inpatient rehabilitation.

At 63 years of age, the life expectancy tables indicate the plaintiff had about 18 years more to live and part of the jury's award, $275,000, was meant to compensate him for his future pain and suffering from this injury in which he claimed he'd have to walk forever with a limp (the defense claimed he'd made a good recovery).

In another recent case, Bermudez  v. New York City Board of Education (Supreme Court, Kings County, Index # 27303/02) [no court decision and not reported publicly but summary available for purchase at Verdict Search], an 11 year old schoolboy fractured his ankle in gym class in a game of soccer. He sued claiming negligent supervision by  his teachers. The jury awarded him $1,030,000 for his pain and suffering - $190,000 for past pain and suffering plus $840,000 for the future.

The boy's ankle fracture was first treated by open reduction and internal fixation and then two years later he underwent an osteotomy (surgical cut through a bone with pieces then removed or repositioned).

At trial, Bermudez's lawyer argued that he would develop residual arthritis and need in the future a surgical fusion of his ankle (in which joint cartilage is removed and screws, plates, rods or pins are placed to hold the position to allow the bones to fuse solid over a few months time).

There are important distinctions between these two recent ankle fracture cases.

  • The disparity in age between the two plaintiffs: in Pryce, a 63 year old and in Bermudez, an 11 year old. Clearly the jury concluded that the 11 year old plaintiff would suffer for many years more than the 63 year old Pryce and awarded him $840,000 for his future damages as opposed to only $275,00 for Pryce's future damages.
  • The Pryce case is an appellate court case and therefore provides much more guidance and is of significant value in guiding lawyers and insurance companies in evaluating pain and suffering in ankle fracture cases.
  • In Bermudez,  not only could there be an appellate reversal on the liability grounds (i.e., whether the city was negligent as a matter of law for either failing to instruct the class or failing to supervise them) but also it appears that the damages award is subject to attack. First, the plaintiff's settlement demand before trial was only $450,000 (the city had offered only $60,000). Second, any appeal in this case would go to the Appellate Division, Second Department, which ruled in Pryce and which is generally more conservative in its evaluations than its co-equal branch the First Department (which hears appeals from Manhattan and the Bronx only).

We will follow and report any changes.