Bukowski v. Clarkson University, 19 N.Y.3d 353 (2012)
Participants in sports assume the inherent risks of that activity, and educational institutions have a duty to protect athletes from unassumed, concealed, or enhanced risks; less than optimal conditions do not necessarily negate assumption of risk.
Summary
A college baseball pitcher, injured when struck by a batted ball during indoor practice, sued the university and coach, alleging negligence due to poor lighting, a multi-colored backdrop, and the absence of a protective screen. The New York Court of Appeals held that the pitcher assumed the inherent risk of being hit by a batted ball. The court reasoned that the plaintiff, an experienced baseball player, was aware of the risks, appreciated their nature, and voluntarily assumed them by participating in the practice, even under less-than-ideal conditions.
Facts
The plaintiff, Bukowski, a freshman pitcher at Clarkson University, was injured during indoor baseball practice when he was hit by a batted ball. The practice took place in a facility with a multi-colored backdrop and, allegedly, poor lighting. No protective L-screen was used during the practice. Bukowski, an experienced baseball player, had been recruited to play for the team. He had observed a previous practice without the L-screen.
Procedural History
Bukowski sued Clarkson University and his coach. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. At trial, the court granted a directed verdict for the defendants, finding that Bukowski had assumed the risk. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The appeal reached the New York Court of Appeals based on a two-Justice dissent at the Appellate Division.
Issue(s)
Whether a college baseball player assumes the risk of injury when participating in indoor practice under less-than-optimal conditions, specifically without a protective screen and with a distracting backdrop.
Holding
Yes, because the risk of being hit by a batted ball is inherent in baseball, and the plaintiff, an experienced player, was aware of the risk and voluntarily participated in the practice despite the conditions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals applied the doctrine of assumption of risk, stating that a participant in a sporting activity assumes the inherent risks of that activity when they are aware of the risks, appreciate their nature, and voluntarily assume them. The court emphasized that educational institutions must protect athletes from unassumed, concealed, or enhanced risks. However, the court also noted that less-than-optimal conditions do not necessarily negate assumption of risk.
The court found that Bukowski, as an experienced baseball player, was aware of the risk of being hit by a batted ball, noting his testimony that he had seen other pitchers get hit. The court distinguished this case from those involving defective sporting equipment or violations of established safety protocols. The Court stated that, even if the backdrop and lighting were suboptimal, they did not create risks beyond those inherent in the sport. The court found that the defendants fulfilled their duty of making the “conditions as safe as they appear to be” (Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]), and there were no concealed risks unknown to Bukowski.
The Court also emphasized the social value of sports and the need to protect college athletics from crushing liability, stating that the injury was “simply the result of a ‘luckless accident arising from . . . vigorous voluntary participation in competitive . . . athletics’” (Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 659 [1989]).