From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bruno v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 1998
248 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff, an experienced amateur and professional baseball and softball player, was injured while playing in a league softball tournament on property maintained by the defendant, when he stepped on an allegedly protruding in-ground sprinkler head about five inches in diameter, and fell. The plaintiff acknowledged that he played "a lot of ball, you know, baseball college, professional" and so was familiar with similar sprinkler heads on other playing fields.

After issue was joined, the defendant moved for summary judgment, contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury regarding the condition of the field. Its motion was denied. We reverse.

Generally, those who voluntarily participate in sports activities consent, by their participation, to injury-causing events which are reasonably foreseeable consequences of their participation ( see, Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 437; Pascucci v. Town of Oyster Bay, 186 A.D.2d 725). A voluntary participant also assumes the risks involved in the condition of the playing field ( see, Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 277; Pascucci v. Town of Oyster Bay, supra).

The record in this case established that in-ground sprinklers are commonly found on softball fields, and that the plaintiff was aware of such sprinklers on other fields ( see, Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650; Colucci v. Nansen Park, 226 A.D.2d 336).

Insofar as the plaintiff contends that the protruding sprinkler enhanced the risk to him, there is absolutely no evidence in the record of notice to the defendant of the alleged defective condition ( see, Putnam v. Stout, 38 N.Y.2d 607; Dima v. Breslin Realty, 240 A.D.2d 359).

Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bruno v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 1998
248 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Bruno v. Town of Hempstead

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER BRUNO, Respondent, v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 23, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 864

Citing Cases

Bocelli v. Cnty. of Nassau

Here, the defendants failed to provide any evidence that the risk of injury from a sprinkler head was…

Snow v. Uniondale Union Free Sch. Dist.

(¶7). "Generally, those who voluntarily participate in sports activities consent, by their participation, to…