From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cornell v. City of Albany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 16, 1993
199 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 16, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Kahn, J.).


Plaintiff was injured while tobogganing down a hill on a golf course maintained by defendant. The area was posted with a notice indicating that use was at the user's risk. It was known to defendant that the course was used for cross-country skiing and tobogganing. Plaintiff was injured when her toboggan became airborne after passing over a rise below which was a 2- to 3-foot excavation into the hill, made by defendant in preparation for the installation of a golf cart path there the following summer. Plaintiff came down and hit the ground violently, sustaining grave injuries to her spine.

Supreme Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, holding that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury of the sport and that plaintiff failed to state a claim of negligence against defendant as a matter of law. We disagree. It has been held that where a governmental body undertakes to maintain an area for recreation, in general some degree of supervision ought to be exercised to assure that the area is reasonably fit for that purpose. Defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain its property in a safe condition (see, Mesick v State of New York, 118 A.D.2d 214, 216, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 611; see also, Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 N.Y.2d 26, 29; Basso v Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241).

The issue here is whether, under the circumstances, defendant had exercised reasonable care in allowing tobogganing in the area and/or in failing to post a warning of the 2- to 3-foot indentation in the side of the hill which was obscured by the blanket of snow. The issue of whether defendant exercised reasonable care is a factual question and makes summary judgment inappropriate (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361).

Defendant contends that plaintiff assumed the risk of the sport, thus barring her action; Supreme Court concurred and dismissed the complaint. The court found that plaintiff assumed the risk of her injury which is normally associated with the sport. Plaintiff's assumption of the risk of the sport does not necessarily bar her action. It is an element to be considered in determining the proportion of her culpable conduct, if any. Plaintiff was a novice tobogganer and her ability to perceive danger and assume risks is to be weighed based on her knowledge and experience (see, Turcotte v Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 440). The resolution of this question of fact must also abide a trial.

We note that nothing in this decision should be construed as deciding whether the standard of care set forth in General Obligations Law § 9-103 is applicable to this case (see, Clark v State of New York, 178 A.D.2d 908; Dean v Glens Falls Country Club, 170 A.D.2d 798).

Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied.


Summaries of

Cornell v. City of Albany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 16, 1993
199 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Cornell v. City of Albany

Case Details

Full title:CAREN CORNELL, Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBANY, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 16, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
605 N.Y.S.2d 464

Citing Cases

Wagner v. 347 Associates, LLC

Moreover, there are several questions of fact as to whether a dangerous condition existed on the subject…

Sena v. Town of Greenfield

Defendant clearly owed plaintiff Patrick Sena (hereinafter plaintiff) a duty of care which it breached and…