Opinion
March 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The infant plaintiff sustained serious injuries to his eye when a camp counselor collided with him during a game of rugby in which both campers and counselors participated. This negligence action was subsequently commenced against the owners and operators of the camp. The defendants moved for summary judgment contending that recovery was barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk. The Supreme Court denied the motion.
As a general rule, a voluntary participant in an athletic activity is deemed to have consented to accept the risk of injuries that are "known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation" (Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 438-439; see also, Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650, 657). By participating under such circumstances, a plaintiff assumes the risks inherent in the sport and the defendant's duty to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be is satisfied (see, Turcotte v. Fell, supra, at 439; Cardoza v. Village of Freeport, 205 A.D.2d 571). However, a participant does not assume risks that are unreasonably increased (see, Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., supra, at 658).
Here, the defendants were required to exercise reasonable care to protect the infant plaintiff from unreasonably enhanced risks (see, Greaves v. Bronx Y.M.C.A., 87 A.D.2d 394; see also, Lamey v Foley, 188 A.D.2d 157, 164). Whether the risk of injury inherent in the game was unreasonably increased by the active participation of the adult, physically larger counselors is a question of fact considering that rugby, unlike many other sports, is a sport in which heightened and forceful physical contact is extreme, inevitable, and wholly contemplated (see, Lamey v. Foley, supra, at 165). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion. Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.