From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Loney v. Adirondack River Outfitters, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 3, 2003
307 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CA 02-02745

July 3, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Paris, J.), entered October 28, 2002, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, LLP, SYRACUSE (SHERRY R. BRUCE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

O'HARA O'CONNELL, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. EVANS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SCUDDER, KEHOE, BURNS, AND GORSKI, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum:

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).


Summaries of

Loney v. Adirondack River Outfitters, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 3, 2003
307 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Loney v. Adirondack River Outfitters, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MICHELLE LONEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ADIRONDACK RIVER OUTFITTERS…

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

Date published: Jul 3, 2003

Citations

307 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
762 N.Y.S.2d 555