Fairchild v. Amundson

1 Citing case

  1. Loney v. Adirondack River Outfitters, Inc.

    307 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

    Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained during a whitewater rafting trip operated by defendant. Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Defendant met its initial burden on the motion by establishing that being tossed about inside or outside of the raft is an inherent risk of whitewater rafting and that any injury resulting from that risk "is a known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequence" of participating in the activity ( Walter v State of New York, 235 A.D.2d 623, 624; see Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 482-486, rearg denied 90 N.Y.2d 936; Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 437-439; see also Fairchild v. Amundson, 104 Wn. App. 1027; Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories, 32 Cal App. 4th 248). Defendant also established that plaintiff had an appreciation of the nature of the known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable risks inherent in whitewater rafting and voluntarily assumed them, and that the raft and participation in the event were as safe as they appeared to be ( see Morgan, 90 N.Y.2d at 484; Turcotte, 68 N.Y.2d at 439; Papa v. Russo, 279 A.D.2d 744, 745, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 507). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion ( see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).