Case Results
The Appellate Division, First Department Affirms the Dismissal of a Claim Against G&S's Insured that it Negligently Maintained its Basketball Court – May 2010
Type of Case: Premises liability – Recreational Tort
Venue: Supreme Court, Bronx County
Background Facts: The plaintiff was participating in a game of basketball on the insured's premises when he suffered a fractured ankle which required ORIF surgery. Plaintiff claimed that he was attempting to stop a fast break basket when the injury occurred. After jumping to block the shot, he claimed his foot landed in a yellow liquid that was on the floor of the court near the baseline, causing his foot to slide into the wall behind the basket which was three feet beyond the baseline. The plaintiff retained an expert who opined that the three feet distance between the court's baseline and the wall violated industry standard and that the absence of padding on the wall behind the basket violated industry standard.
Our Strategy: We moved for summary judgment based on the absence of notice of the yellow liquid on the court, the assumption of risk doctrine and the absence of any code violations relating to the basketball court. We attacked the plaintiff's expert affidavit on the grounds that it did not cite to any specific relevant codes, case law or industry standards in support of its position.
Result: In the face of G&S's opposition, the plaintiff abandoned his notice argument, essentially conceding the absence of any evidence the yellow liquid had been on the floor for a sufficient period of time to allow the insured's maintenance staff to discover and mop it up. Further, the lower court and appellate court both agreed that the plaintiff's expert failed to establish any prima facie negligence on the part of the YMCA.
|