Custodi v. Town of Amherst, 20 N.Y.3d 83 (2012)

The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, which can negate a defendant’s duty of care, is generally limited to sporting events, sponsored athletic or recreational activities, or activities at designated venues.

Summary

Robin Custodi was injured while rollerblading when she fell after her skate struck a two-inch height differential where a driveway met a drainage culvert. She sued the homeowners, alleging negligence. The New York Court of Appeals held that the primary assumption of risk doctrine did not apply because Custodi was not engaged in a sporting event, sponsored activity, or using a designated venue. The court emphasized the need to narrowly circumscribe the assumption of risk doctrine to avoid undermining comparative fault principles. The decision clarifies that landowners owe a general duty of care to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition for non-pedestrians like rollerbladers, absent specific circumstances invoking assumption of risk.

Facts

Robin Custodi, an experienced rollerblader, was rollerblading in her residential neighborhood. She navigated around a truck blocking the street by skating onto a driveway entrance to reach the sidewalk. She then attempted to re-enter the street using the Muffoletto’s driveway. As she neared the end of the driveway, her skate allegedly struck a two-inch height differential where the driveway met a drainage culvert, causing her to fall and break her hip.

Procedural History

Custodi sued the homeowners (Muffolettos) for negligence. The Supreme Court granted the homeowner’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint based on assumption of risk. The Appellate Division reversed, reinstating the complaint, finding that assumption of risk did not apply and that there was a triable issue of fact regarding proximate cause. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applies to bar a negligence claim where the plaintiff was injured while rollerblading on a residential driveway and the injury was allegedly caused by a height differential between the driveway and a drainage culvert.

Holding

No, because the primary assumption of the risk doctrine is generally limited to sporting events, sponsored athletic or recreational activities, or athletic and recreational pursuits that take place at designated venues.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals analyzed the application of the assumption of risk doctrine in light of CPLR 1411, which established comparative negligence. The Court acknowledged that a limited form of assumption of risk, “primary” assumption of risk, survived CPLR 1411. This doctrine operates by negating the defendant’s duty of care to the plaintiff. However, the Court emphasized that the doctrine should be narrowly applied. The Court noted that prior cases applying assumption of risk involved sporting events or recreational activities sponsored or supported by the defendant, or occurring at a designated athletic or recreational venue. Citing Trupia v. Lake George Cent. School Dist., the Court stated that assumption of the risk “must be closely circumscribed if it is not seriously to undermine and displace the principles of comparative causation” (14 NY3d at 395). Extending the doctrine to injuries on streets and sidewalks would unduly diminish the duty of landowners to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Court distinguished the case from those involving designated recreational venues, emphasizing that the plaintiff was simply rollerblading in her neighborhood. The court stated, “As a general rule, application of assumption of the risk should be limited to cases appropriate for absolution of duty, such as personal injury claims arising from sporting events, sponsored athletic and recreative activities, or athletic and recreational pursuits that take place at designated venues.” The Court found it unnecessary to decide if any other exceptions existed. The Court emphasized that the defendants did not argue that their duty did not extend to altering the height differential, thus the negligence issue remained for litigation.