Williams v. Clinton Central School DistrictWilliams v. Clinton Central School District
Memorandum: Plaintiff, a senior in high school, commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she fell while performing a stunt during cheerleading practice at school. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendant‘s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant met its initial burden by establishing as a matter of law that the action is barred based on the primary assumption of risk by plaintiff. Although defendant was “under a duty to exercise ordinary reasonable care to protect student athletes involved in extracurricular sports from unreasonably increased risks” (Driever v Spackenkill Union Free School Dist., 20 AD3d 384, 384 [2005]; see Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 658 [1989]), the risks that are known and fully comprehended, open and obvious, inherent in the activity, and reasonably foreseeable are assumed by the student athlete (see Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439 [1986]; Lamey v Foley, 188 AD2d 157, 164 [1993]). Here, defendant established that “[t]he risk posed [to] plaintiff by performing her cheerleading routine on a bare wood gym floor, as opposed to a matted surface, was obvious” (Traficenti v Moore Catholic High School, 282 AD2d 216 [2001]), and thus that “plaintiff assumed the risks of the sport in which she voluntarily engaged” (Fisher v Syosset Cent. School Dist., 264 AD2d 438, 439 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 759 [2000]). Plaintiff‘s submissions in opposition to the motion “consisted only of speculative and conclusory opinions to support the conclusion that the defendant[ ] had unreasonably increased the risks to the plaintiff by failing to
Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.