Maddox v. City of N.Y. - 66 N.Y.2d 270, 496 N.Y.S.2d 726, 487 N.E.2d 553 (1985)

Rule:

There is no question that the assumption of the risk doctrine requires not only knowledge of the injury-causing defect but also appreciation of the resultant risk. Awareness of risk is not to be determined in a vacuum. It is, rather, to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff, and in that assessment a higher degree of awareness will be imputed to a professional than to one with less than professional experience in the particular sport.

Facts:

In June 1975, plaintiff Elliot Maddox, a member of the New York Yankees team, was injured when he slipped and fell during the ninth inning of a night game with the Chicago White Sox. Plaintiff testified that he was playing centerfield and was fielding a fly ball hit to right centerfield, that he was running to his left and as he sought to stop running his left foot hit a wet spot and slid, but his right foot stuck in a mud puddle, as a result of which his right knee buckled. The knee injury required three separate surgical procedures and ultimately forced him to retire prematurely from professional baseball. Plaintiff sued defendants City of New York, baseball club, umpires, stadium owner, builder, and maintenance company. After consolidation of the actions and after depositions had been taken, four of the defendants and cross claim defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaints on the ground that plaintiff had assumed the risk. Special Term denied the motions and held that it could be inferred that plaintiff in continuing to play was acting under his superior s instructions, therefore, there was an issue of fact to be tried. On appeal, the appellate division reversed and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment because plaintiff had admitted that the previous night's game had been canceled because of the poor field conditions, that he had observed the field to be wet and muddy and had reported that condition to the ground crew, and had presented no evidence of an order from a superior after making the condition known. Plaintiff sought review of the decision.

Issue:

Did the appellate division err in holding that plaintiff assume the risk?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed and held that plaintiff had assumed the risk of continuing to play baseball on a field that was wet and muddy because of his admission. The court ruled that awareness of risk was to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff, and in that assessment a higher degree of awareness would be imputed to plaintiff as a professional baseball player. The court held that it was not necessary to the application of assumption of risk that plaintiff had foreseen the exact manner in which his injury occurred. The court also found that plaintiff presented no evidence of an order from a superior telling him to continue playing. Thus, the court held that there remained no triable issue of fact against defendants, city, baseball club, umpires, stadium owner, builder, and maintenance company.