Scheuer v. Bauer, 67 N.Y.2d 43 (1986)
Participants in recreational activities, who place themselves in the path of a known and apparent risk, may be deemed to have assumed the risk of injury associated with that activity, thereby relieving other participants of a duty of care.
Summary
This case addresses the issue of assumption of risk in the context of a recreational activity. The plaintiff, a 15-year-old experienced baseball player, was injured when he was struck by an errant throw while standing near his friends who were playing catch. The New York Court of Appeals held that by placing himself in the vicinity of the ongoing game, the plaintiff assumed the risk of being hit by a misthrown ball, and therefore, the defendants owed him no duty of care. This decision highlights the principle that individuals engaging in or near recreational activities may be deemed to have accepted certain inherent risks.
Facts
Two boys, Bauer (14 years old) and Scheuer (15 years old), were playing catch on a city street at a distance of 25 feet. The plaintiff, also 15 and an experienced baseball player, approached the defendants during their game. He greeted and conversed with each of them as they continued playing catch. The plaintiff then moved behind Bauer and talked with other friends. Bauer threw the ball to Scheuer, who missed the catch. Scheuer retrieved the ball and threw it from 75 feet, and the errant throw struck the plaintiff in the mouth, causing injury.
Procedural History
The lower court’s decision was appealed to the Appellate Division, which held in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff had assumed the risk. The plaintiff then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, considering the plaintiff voluntarily placed himself near an ongoing game of catch and was subsequently injured by a misthrown ball.
Holding
No, because by placing himself in the line of an ongoing game of catch between his friends, plaintiff put himself in danger of being struck by a misthrown ball and therefore assumed the risk. Thus, the defendants owed the plaintiff no duty of care.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, emphasizing the principle of assumption of risk. The court reasoned that the plaintiff, by knowingly positioning himself near an ongoing game of catch, placed himself in a foreseeable zone of danger. The court found that the plaintiff, an experienced baseball player, was aware of the inherent risks associated with the activity. By voluntarily placing himself in that situation, the plaintiff assumed the risk of being struck by a misthrown ball. This assumption of risk negated any duty of care that the defendants might otherwise have owed to the plaintiff. The court’s decision reflects a policy consideration that participants in recreational activities should bear some responsibility for their own safety when they knowingly expose themselves to inherent risks. The court implicitly determined that imposing a duty of care in this situation would unduly burden recreational activities and discourage participation. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions noted in the memorandum decision.