Sena v. Town of Greenfield, 91 N.Y.2d 611 (1998)

General Obligations Law § 9-103 does not shield a municipality from liability for ordinary negligence in operating and maintaining a supervised public park and recreational facility.

Summary

Patrick Sena sued the Town of Greenfield for injuries sustained while sledding on a hill in a town park. The Town claimed immunity under General Obligations Law § 9-103, which protects landowners who allow recreational use of their property. The Court of Appeals held that the statutory immunity does not apply to supervised public parks. Because the town had designated the area as a park, improved the hill for sledding, and supervised its use, it could not claim immunity under § 9-103. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division to consider other issues raised but not addressed.

Facts

Patrick Sena was injured while sledding with his son on a hill owned by the Town of Greenfield. The hill was located in an area that the Town Board had designated as a Town park by resolution. The Highway Department had previously used the area as a gravel pit. In 1988, the Town Board directed the Highway Superintendent to grade the gravel pit to make it suitable for sledding. After the grading, the hill was used for sledding. The Highway Superintendent routinely inspected the hill and became concerned about safety, urging the Town Supervisor to close the hill. The Town Supervisor initially complied but was overruled by the Town Board, which instructed him to reopen the hill. Sena was injured on January 22, 1989, when his sled hit a mound, throwing him and his son off.

Procedural History

Sena sued the Town of Greenfield. The Supreme Court denied the Town’s motion for summary judgment based on General Obligations Law § 9-103. A jury found the Town 100% liable. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint, holding that § 9-103 applied because the Town had opened the land for sledding free of charge. Two justices dissented, arguing that the area was a supervised public park. Sena appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether General Obligations Law § 9-103 immunizes a municipality from liability for injuries sustained in a supervised public park and recreational facility.

Holding

No, because General Obligations Law § 9-103 does not apply to immunize a municipality from liability for its failure to fulfill its duty of reasonable care in the operation and maintenance of a supervised public park and recreational facility.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that General Obligations Law § 9-103 grants immunity to landowners who permit recreational activities on their property to encourage them to do so. However, this quid pro quo does not apply when a municipality already operates a supervised public park. In such cases, the municipality has already assumed a duty to maintain the facility in a reasonably safe condition. Applying § 9-103 in this context would create an anomaly where liability depends on whether the recreational activity is specifically listed in the statute. The court emphasized that “the statute does not apply… to immunize, a municipality from liability for its failure to fulfill its duty of reasonable care in the operation and maintenance of a supervised public park and recreational facility.” The court found that the hill was part of a supervised Town park because the Town Board had declared it a park, the Highway Department had graded the hill for sledding, and the Highway Superintendent routinely inspected it. The court quoted the dissent from the Appellate Division: “Defendant had declared the area to be a Town park by Town Board resolution…The area was graded by the [Highway] Superintendent to be used for sledding and the Town Board officially sanctioned such use with the proviso that a sign be posted indicating that participation was at one’s own risk.” This level of involvement and supervision meant that the Town could not claim immunity under § 9-103. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division to consider other issues.