From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cadieux v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 8, 1966
25 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)

Summary

In Cadieux the reviewing court stated that it is well settled that a spectator at a sporting event assumes the obvious and necessary risks incidental to a game.

Summary of this case from Osborne v. Sprowls

Opinion

February 8, 1966


Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Schenectady County, granting respondent's motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212. From the complaint and testimony elicited at a pretrial examination held pursuant to section 50-h Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law it appears that on November 9, 1964 Donna Cadieux, then a 17-year-old high school student, was injured when participants in a football game she was watching left the marked field during the course of play. At the time of the incident Miss Cadieux was viewing the game from the sidelines, although she was aware participants occasionally left the field of play and seats in adjacent bleachers were available. It is well settled that a spectator at a sporting event assumes the obvious and necessary risks incidental to the game, especially where he chooses to sit at an unsafe place despite the availability of protected seating (baseball: Robert v. Deposit Cent. School Dist., 18 A.D.2d 947, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 709; Baker v. Topping, 15 A.D.2d 193, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 N.Y.2d 644; Zeitz v. Cooperstown Baseball Centennial, 31 Misc.2d 142; Adonnino v. Village of Mount Morris, 171 Misc. 383; Blackhall v. Albany Baseball Amusement Co., 157 Misc. 801; hockey: Ingersoll v. Onondaga Hockey Club, 245 App. Div. 137; Hammel v. Madison Sq. Garden Corp., 156 Misc. 311, and even a game of stickball: Lutzker v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 262 App. Div. 881, affd. 287 N.Y. 822), and the same rationale applies to a football game. The fact that Miss Cadieux was then 17 does not affect the applicability of the above rule to the instant case ( Robert v. Deposit Cent. School Dist., supra; Adonnino v. Village of Mount Morris, supra; Lutzker v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., supra). We find no merit in the additional contentions advanced by appellants. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P.J., Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cadieux v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 8, 1966
25 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)

In Cadieux the reviewing court stated that it is well settled that a spectator at a sporting event assumes the obvious and necessary risks incidental to a game.

Summary of this case from Osborne v. Sprowls
Case details for

Cadieux v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist

Case Details

Full title:DONNA M. CADIEUX, an Infant, by RAYMOND O. CADIEUX, Her Natural Father and…

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

Date published: Feb 8, 1966

Citations

25 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)

Citing Cases

Osborne v. Sprowls

The appeals court of Louisiana noted that plaintiff's complaint contained no allegation of malicious or…

McNally v. Addis

Furthermore, an infant must exercise the care which an ordinary prudent person of his age, capacity and…