Fintzi v. New Jersey YMHA-YWHA, 9 N.Y.3d 691 (2005)

Organizers of recreational activities owe participants a duty of reasonable care to protect them from unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks, but are not liable for injuries resulting from naturally occurring conditions that are obvious and inherent to the activity.

Summary

A 10-year-old boy, Jonathan Fintzi, was injured during a relay race at a summer camp when he slipped and fell on a wet grass field. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant, New Jersey YMHA-YWHA. The court held that allowing children to play on wet grass does not constitute negligent supervision and that the camp did not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the activity. The court reasoned that imposing liability in this situation would unduly restrict recreational activities.

Facts

Jonathan Fintzi, a 10-year-old, participated in a relay race at a summer camp operated by the defendant. The race took place on a grass field that was wet due to morning humidity and fog. Jonathan slipped and fell twice while running the course. During his second fall, he broke his arm.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision, with two justices dissenting. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Issue(s)

Whether a summer camp breached its duty of care to a child participant by allowing him to participate in a relay race on a grass field that was wet due to naturally occurring conditions, when the child subsequently slipped and was injured.

Holding

No, because the camp did not increase the risk associated with the naturally and obviously damp field, and imposing liability in this situation would be an overextension of the duty of care owed by organizers of recreational activities.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that organizers of sporting or recreational events have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect participants from injuries arising out of unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks. The court cited Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650, 654 (1989), stating that the duty extends only to those risks. However, the court found no evidence that the camp counselors increased the risk associated with the wet field. The court emphasized the naturally occurring and obvious nature of the dampness. The court quoted Sauer v. Hebrew Inst., 17 A.D.2d 245 (1962), stating that to hold the defendant liable would “so sterilize camping…as to render it sedentary.” The court concluded that the plaintiff’s injury was not the consequence of a failed duty of care on the part of the defendant, as a matter of law. The core legal principle is that operators are not insurers of safety; they must provide reasonable care, but are not liable for injuries stemming from inherent risks in the activity and obvious natural conditions.