From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hernandez v. Castle Hill Little League

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 29, 1998
256 A.D.2d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 29, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.).


The infant plaintiff, 13 years of age and a six-year veteran of Little League play at the field in question, was standing in his team's dugout having a conversation with his coach when he bent over to tie his shoes. As he did so, he was struck by a ball alleged to have been errantly thrown by a catcher warming up a pitcher during pre-game practice. The infant plaintiff, claiming to have suffered a skull fracture, resulting in recurring headaches and other injuries sequelae, commenced this action against the City of New York, the owner of the field, and the Little League defendants. As against the latter, the infant plaintiff claimed that the field was improperly laid out in that there was inadequate fencing around the bullpen area and that the League was negligent in supervising plaintiffs on-field activities. Neither claim has merit and, in the circumstances, the complaint should have been dismissed.

"It has long been established * * * that participants in athletic events assume the risk of injury normally associated with the sport." ( Maddox v. City of New York, 108 A.D.2d 42, 45, affd 66 N.Y.2d 270 [citations omitted].) The rule is the same for amateurs who voluntarily participate in athletic activity ( Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650) and applies to non-participants, as well as players ( Dillard v. Little League Baseball, 55 A.D.2d 477, lv denied 42 N.Y.2d 801). The risk of being hit by a baseball in and around the playing field is inherent in the sport itself. While it is true that participants will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct or concealed or unreasonably increased risks ( Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., supra, at 654, 658), there is no evidence in this record that the Little League defendants had reason to know of a concealed defect in the field which unreasonably increased the risk of injury or that they were aware of danger over and above the risks associated with the game itself.

Nor is there any evidence that inadequate supervision was responsible for the accident or that better supervision could have prevented it.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

Hernandez v. Castle Hill Little League

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 29, 1998
256 A.D.2d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Hernandez v. Castle Hill Little League

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND HERNANDEZ, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, HARRY…

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

Date published: Dec 29, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 191

Citing Cases

Robinson v. New York City Housing Authority

Plaintiff, who was struck in the eye by a low lying branch of a tree on the field when he jumped on the back…

Ramos v. City of New York

The record demonstrates that no issue of fact refutes the City's prima facie showing that plaintiff, an…