Here, the condition of the locker room, while perhaps not ideal, was open and obvious, and any risks were readily appreciable ( see Roberts, 51 A.D.3d at 248, 850 N.Y.S.2d 38). Thus, the school district defendants “fulfilled their duty of making the ‘conditions as safe as they appear[ed] to be’ ” (Bukowski, 19 N.Y.3d at 357, 948 N.Y.S.2d 568, 971 N.E.2d 849, quoting Morgan, 90 N.Y.2d at 484, 662 N.Y.S.2d 421, 685 N.E.2d 202). With respect to Martini, plaintiff “failed to present evidence that [Martini]'s conduct was reckless or intentional” (Wollruch v. Jaekel, 103 A.D.3d 524, 524, 959 N.Y.S.2d 435). Indeed, plaintiff acknowledged that Martini was not engaged in horseplay or any other improper conduct at the time of the accident. Martini did not know that plaintiff was behind him when he stepped backwards, and plaintiff did nothing to alert Martini of his presence.
Slipping in a pool of water while walking on a locker room floor is not an inherent risk of a sporting activity that the doctrine contemplates. Custodi v. Town of Amherst, 20 N.Y.3d 83, 88-89 (2012); Trupia v. Lack George Cent. School Dist., 14 N.Y.3d 392, 396 (2010); Ashbourne v. City of New York, 82 A.D.3d 461, 462-463 (1st Dep't 2011); Wollruch v. Jaekel, 103 A.D.3d 524, 524 (1st Dep't 2013). As discussed further below, plaintiff's carelessness bears on his comparative fault, but does not completely bar his claim.