Here in Buffalo, the limits of “assumption of risk” as a defense in a personal injury lawsuit are currently different than they are in Albany. That fact, however, is about to change.
Generally, assumption of risk is a defense in personal injury cases that may bar the injured person from collecting any damages if he or she was aware of the danger involved in a certain activity but chose to proceed anyway. It is frequently applied in cases related to sporting or entertainment activities, where the injured party was aware that the activity, such as playing football, involved a certain risk of injury.
Lower courts in parts of New York State, including the appellate court with jurisdiction over Western New York, have previously extended the assumption of risk doctrine to cases not involving sporting or entertainment activities. In Trupia v. Lake George Central School District, however, an appellate court with jurisdiction over the Albany area declined to extend the assumption of risk doctrine to a case where a child was injured sliding down a stairway banister at the school. As a result, there is currently a conflict between different parts of the state on how this doctrine is applied.
The decision in Trupia v. Lake George Central School District has been appealed, and in February of 2010, the New York State Court of Appeals will be hearing oral argument on the extent of the assumption of risk doctrine. The decision of the Court of Appeals will be binding on all lower courts in the state. As a result, the current differences in how assumption of risk is applied in various parts of New York State will soon be resolved.
{ 0 comments… add one now }
{ 2 trackbacks }