Brooklyn Boro

Brooklyn court again against school district in assumption of risk case

Judges Find Phys-Ed Teacher May Have Been Negligent in MMA-Style Tournament

January 19, 2015 By Charisma L. Troiano, Esq. Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Justice Sylvia Hinds-Radix. Eagle file photo by Mario Belluomo
Share this:

The Appellate Division, Second Department, unanimously ordered that a negligence case against an upstate school district could continue in light of a likelihood of the plaintiff’s success at trial. 

High school student Angela Pierre sued the Ramapo Central School District in Rockland County, N.Y., alleging that the school was responsible for Pierre’s injuries incurred during a school sponsored self-defense tournament. Ramapo argued that by voluntarily participating in the school’s self-defense classes, Pierre assumed the risk of injury inherent in the sport. 

A Rockland County judge denied the school’s motion to dismiss, causing the district to appeal to the higher Brooklyn appellate court. 

Earlier this month, the Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled against a Long Island school district finding that a student injured during an indoor soccer practice did not assume the risk of injury after running face-first into a wall. 

As reported by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and explained by the court in the Long Island case, under New York case law, primary assumption of risk can be used as a measure of a defendant’s negligence in cases involving organized athletic activity.

“Under this theory, a plaintiff who freely accepts a known risk ‘commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him from the risk,’” the Brooklyn court wrote in its opinion on the Long Island school case.

By engaging in the sport, the doctrine holds, the child and parent is partly liable — or assumes to risk of injury — for any injuries that may result in that participation.

“Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity, consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation,” the court wrote. 

In Pierre’s case, the school district provided a self-defense course as an elective available to students in lieu of a physical education course.  The class, taught by the school’s phys-ed teacher, Joseph Biddy, combined a mix of martial arts techniques. According to Biddy’s deposition testimony, the lessons learned in the class came from karate, taekwondo, judo and juijitsu.

Although Biddy had no formal training in these martial arts forms, the school allowed the teacher to continue the course and arrange for and even referee a self-defense tournament between the students. 

During the tournament, Pierre was injured when a student used a particular mixed martial arts move made popular on the Ultimate Fighting MMA competition shows. 

Biddy and the school district argued that Biddy never taught the students the injuring move.  However, Biddy admitted he had witnessed students using the move in his class and was aware of its popularity. Despite this knowledge, the school district’s argument continued, Biddy and by extension the school district cannot be held liable as the “but for” or proximate cause of Pierre’s injuries because she assumed the risk of injury by her participation in the tournament. 

“The doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply to bar a cause of action where the risks at issue were unassumed, concealed or unreasonably increased,” the appellate court reminded. 

Taped footage of the tournament showed that the controversial move was first used 17 seconds into the bout and that Biddy witnessed Pierre’s opponent use the move. Pierre was injured the second time that move was used in the fight with her opponent.

“Under these circumstances,” the court held, “the defendant [school district] failed to establish that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies so as to relieve it of a legal duty to [Pierre].” 

With the school district unable to show that the coach’s lack of supervision, as alleged by Pierre, was not the proximate cause of Pierre’s injury, the higher appeals court held that the Rockland County Supreme Court, “properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.” 

Justices Ruth Balkin, L. Priscilla Hall, Syliva Hinds-Radix and John Leventhal sat on the appellate panel. 

Henderson & Brennan of Uniondale with Grergory A. Cascino serving as of counsel appeared for the school district and Birbrower & Beldock of New City with Jeffery Saunders as of counsel represented Pierre.

 

Subscribe to our newsletters


Leave a Comment


Leave a Comment