(L-R)Katryna L. Kristoferson and David Paul Horowitz of the Law Offices of David Paul Horowitz. Courtesy photos Practical New York Practice™
|Introduction
Many of us recall learning about the assumption of risk doctrine in law school, while others learned about it in practice. Whether in New York state or federal courts applying New York law, the doctrine today is limited to "athletic and recreational activities," and that limitation, as Judge Benjamin Cardozo explained in Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement, 250 NY 479, 482-483 (1929), "is based on the premise that 'one who takes part in … a sport accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary.'"Assumption of Risk Doctrine in Sports: Hold or Fold?
Many of us recall learning about the assumption of risk doctrine in law school, while others learned about it in practice. Whether in New York state or federal courts applying New York law, the doctrine today is limited to "athletic and recreational activities."
June 26, 2023 at 11:18 AM
11 minute read
(L-R)Katryna L. Kristoferson and David Paul Horowitz of the Law Offices of David Paul Horowitz. Courtesy photos
Practical New York Practice™
|Introduction
Many of us recall learning about the assumption of risk doctrine in law school, while others learned about it in practice. Whether in New York state or federal courts applying New York law, the doctrine today is limited to "athletic and recreational activities," and that limitation, as Judge Benjamin Cardozo explained in Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement, 250 NY 479, 482-483 (1929), "is based on the premise that 'one who takes part in … a sport accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary.'"
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Decision of the Day: Split Circuit Panel Bars Enforcement of Ivory Law's 'Display Restriction' on Antique Group Members
Decision of the Day: Judge Precludes Ballistics Expert's Opinion on Scene for 2016 Fatal Police Shooting
Decision of the Day: Contingency Fee to Counsel Result of Successful Advocacy, Not Windfall
Trending Stories
- 1Commission Confirms Three of Newsom's Appellate Court Picks
- 2Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 3GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 4'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 5Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
