Article by Patrick J. Graham, Esq.

Written by: Ruhani K. Aulakh, Law Clerk
Edited by: Patrick J. Graham, Esq.

The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division recently clarified the assumption of risk doctrine as it relates to sports participants.  In Fritz v. Walden Playboys M.C. Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03524 (June 29, 2023), plaintiff Joseph C. Fritz was practicing at the Walden motocross racetrack.  Fritz, who had years of experience riding motocross, took his first practice lap and noticed something was wrong with the track when the back of his bike kicked up irregularly.  Although he knew something was wrong with the track, Fritz performed a second practice lap to see what the issue was.  On this second practice lap, Fritz landed in a deep powder and was unable to gain control of his bike.  As a result, Fritz was thrown over the handlebars and sustained several injuries.

Fritz filed a suit against defendant, Walden Playboys M.C. Inc. (“Walden”).  After discovery, Walden moved for summary judgment, arguing that Fritz’s claims were barred by the assumption of risk doctrine.  Fritz opposed the motion, arguing that Walden created an unreasonable risk of harm by failing to address a hole in the track that was caused by negligent grooming of the track.  The lower court denied Walden’s motion, and Walden appealed the decision.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that Fritz did not set forth a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.  In coming to this conclusion, the Court first looked at the primary assumption of risk doctrine which states that a participant consents to risks that are obvious.  Further, to determine whether the assumption of risk doctrine applies, courts assess the participant’s knowledge of the dangerous condition against the background of his or her skill and experience.  If the moving party satisfies its burden to show that a party assumed the risk, the non-moving party is then required to show that the party unreasonably enhances the danger or created conditions which were unique compared to those inherent in the activity.

The Court looked to both Fritz’s and Walden’s testimony to determine whether Fritz set forth a genuine issue of material fact.  The record established that Fritz was a motocross expert with several years of experience on different racetracks, including the Walden racetrack.  Fritz was aware that holes develop on a racetrack but testified that the dirt used to fill in the hole was different than anything he had seen before.  Walden provided testimony of several club members who collectively testified that the dirt used in repairing the hole came from the pits on the track’s property and that the conditions of the track change every five to ten minutes.  Walden’s expert witness further echoed the club members’ testimony, explaining that motocross riders consistently encounter changing conditions that are unavoidable.  The Court held that such testimony was sufficient to satisfy Walden’s burden.

Since Walden satisfied its burden to show that the non-moving party assumed the risk, Fritz then had to demonstrate that Walden unreasonably enhanced the danger or created a condition above those inherent in the activity.  Fritz argued that because of the location of the hazard, he would not have been able to see the hazard without driving back onto the track.  As such, Fritz explained that he had to “feel out” the track on a second lap to determine what the issue is.  The Court held that it was clear Fritz was aware of an unusual condition on the track, but nevertheless continued with his activity.  Therefore, Fritz assumed the risk of riding on a hazardous track.

The Court held that Fritz did not raise an issue of material fact as to whether Walden concealed or unreasonably increased the risks to which Fritz was exposed.  As such, the Court reversed the lower court’s order and granted Walden’s motion for summary judgment.