Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432 (1986)

r

A professional athlete consents to injury-causing events which are known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of their participation in the sport, but not to reckless or intentional acts outside the normal scope of the game.

r

Summary

r

Ronald Turcotte, a professional jockey, was severely injured during a race at Belmont Park. He sued a fellow jockey, Jeffrey Fell, Fell’s employer, and the New York Racing Association (NYRA), alleging negligence and violations of racing rules. The court addressed the scope of duty owed to a professional athlete by coparticipants and the facility operator. The court held that by participating in the race, Turcotte consented to the inherent risks of the sport, limiting the duty of care owed to him by the defendants to avoiding reckless or intentional conduct. The dismissal of the claims against Fell and Reynolds (Fell’s employer) was affirmed; the denial of NYRA’s motion for summary judgment was reversed.

r

Facts

r

Ronald Turcotte, a seasoned jockey, was injured when his horse clipped the heels of another horse during a race at Belmont Park, causing him to fall. Jeffrey Fell, another jockey, was positioned near Turcotte at the start of the race. Turcotte sued Fell for negligence and violating racing rules, Reynolds as Fell’s employer, and NYRA for negligent maintenance of the racetrack.

r

Procedural History

r

The trial court granted summary judgment to Fell and Reynolds, finding Turcotte assumed the risks of racing. NYRA’s motion for summary judgment was denied, finding triable issues about track maintenance. The Appellate Division affirmed both decisions, with a dissent on the NYRA ruling. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal.

r

Issue(s)

r

r
1. Whether a professional athlete, by participating in a sporting event, consents to relieve other participants of a duty of reasonable care with respect to known, inherent risks of the activity.

r

2. What is the scope of duty of care owed by a racetrack owner/operator to a professional jockey regarding the condition of the track?

r

r

Holding

r

r
1. Yes, because a participant consents to known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of participation, limiting the duty to avoid reckless or intentional conduct.

r

2. The NYRA’s duty is measured by the jockey’s consent to accept the risks of injuries that are known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of his participation in the race.

r

r

Court’s Reasoning

r

The court reasoned that participants in sports assume certain risks inherent in the activity. This assumption of risk, while not an absolute defense due to comparative negligence, shapes the duty of care owed by other participants and the facility operator. The court distinguished between careless conduct, which is within the assumed risks, and reckless or intentional conduct, which is not.

r

Regarding Fell’s conduct, the court found that the alleged violation of the foul riding rule did not amount to reckless or intentional conduct, but rather, at most, carelessness, which Turcotte assumed as a risk of racing. The court stated, “While a participant’s ‘consent’ to join in a sporting activity is not a waiver of all rules infractions, nonetheless a professional clearly understands the usual incidents of competition resulting from carelessness, particularly those which result from the customarily accepted method of playing the sport, and accepts them.”

r

Regarding NYRA, the court held that its duty of care was limited by Turcotte’s awareness of the track conditions. The court noted Turcotte’s testimony that