Owen v. R.J.S. Realty Co., 79 N.Y.2d 967 (1992)

General Obligations Law § 5-326 renders unenforceable exculpatory agreements purporting to release owners or operators of recreational facilities from liability when a fee is charged for the use of the facility, and assumption of risk is not a viable defense where the defendant’s negligence created risks beyond those inherent in the sport.

Summary

Owen involved a race car driver’s death at a speedway. The plaintiff argued that a release signed by the driver was unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-326 because a fee was paid for access to the pit area, a necessary condition for participating in the race. The plaintiff further contended that the track’s dangerous design created risks beyond those inherent in auto racing. The Court of Appeals held that the release was unenforceable due to the fee paid for facility use and that a triable question of fact existed regarding whether the track’s design created additional, unassumed risks, thus precluding summary judgment for the defendants.

Facts

The plaintiff’s decedent, a race car driver, died in an accident at the Orange County Fair Speedway. The decedent had signed a release purporting to exonerate the track owner and race promoter from liability. The decedent had paid a fee to access the pit area of the speedway, a necessary condition for participating in the race. Expert affidavits submitted by the plaintiff indicated that the track’s retaining wall contour, guardrail design, and barrel placement created a dangerous condition exceeding the usual risks of auto racing.

Procedural History

The plaintiff brought suit against the track owner and race promoter. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the release signed by the decedent and the affirmative defense of assumption of risk. The trial court’s decision was appealed to the Appellate Division, and subsequently to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether General Obligations Law § 5-326 applies to a fee paid for access to the pit area of a speedway, making a signed release unenforceable.
2. Whether the affirmative defense of assumption of risk bars recovery when the defendant’s negligence allegedly created dangerous conditions beyond those inherent in the sport of auto racing.

Holding

1. Yes, because admission to the pit area was a necessary condition to the decedent’s participation in the race, and a fee was paid for the use of the facility.
2. No, because the plaintiff’s submissions created a triable question of fact as to whether the defendants’ alleged negligence engendered additional risks that do not inhere in the sport and, if so, whether the decedent should be deemed to have assumed those risks.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that General Obligations Law § 5-326 applies because the decedent paid a fee for the use of the recreational facility (the pit area), which was a necessary condition for participating in the race. This triggers the statute, rendering the release unenforceable. The court distinguished this case from Lago v. Krollage, where the fee was paid for membership in a race promotion organization, not for the use of a particular racetrack. Regarding assumption of risk, the Court cited Turcotte v. Fell, emphasizing that while participants assume inherent risks of a sport, they do not necessarily assume risks created by the negligence of the facility operator. The expert affidavits suggesting that the track’s design created unique and dangerous conditions beyond the usual risks of auto racing were sufficient to create a triable issue of fact, precluding summary judgment. As the court stated, the affidavits raised the question of whether “defendants’ alleged negligence, if any, engendered additional risks that ‘do not inhere in the sport’ and, if so, whether the decedent should be deemed to have assumed those risks by voluntarily participating in the race.”