From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bouchard v. Smiley Brothers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1999
258 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 16, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Smiley Brothers, Inc.

The plaintiffs decedent lost her footing while hiking on an advanced mountain trail at the Mohonk Mountain Preserve in New Paltz (hereinafter the MMP) and fell off a rock cliff which bordered the trail. The trail on which the decedent was hiking was described in trail maps and on an outdoor trailboard as containing, inter alia, rock scrambles and primitive paths that "are often on the edge of cliffs" with no railings. The decedent was an experienced hiker, having hiked at the MMP on at least 10 prior occasions.

It is well settled that "[b]y engaging in a sporting event or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation" ( Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 484; see, Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650; Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 278; Bruno v. Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, 248 A.D.2d 660).

Here, the record demonstrates that the decedent assumed the risks inherent in recreational hiking, including the risk of injury arising from the open and obvious physical features of the advanced trail where the accident took place. Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the dangers posed by the proximity of the rock ledge were open and obvious and, therefore, the decedent assumed those risks which would be commonly associated with its presence, including the possibility of falling as she did ( see, Morgan v. State of New York, supra, 90 N.Y.2d, at 484). Since the injury sustained arose from a risk inherent in the recreational activity at issue, and did not involve any sort of concealed or unreasonably enhanced danger ( see, Morgan v. State of New York, supra, 90 N.Y.2d, at 485), the motion by the defendant Smiley Brothers, Inc., the owner and operator of the MMP, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted.

Miller, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bouchard v. Smiley Brothers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1999
258 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Bouchard v. Smiley Brothers, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DOLORES BOUCHARD, as Administrator of the Estate of KAREN M. BOUCHARD…

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

Date published: Feb 16, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 289

Citing Cases

Weirich v. Finger Lakes Land Tr.

"It is well settled that by engaging in a sporting event or recreational activity, a participant consents to…

Kremerov v. Forest View Nursing Home

In any event, the evidence demonstrates that participants in the Adult Daycare programs were previously…