The New York State Court of Appeals recently issued a decision clarifying the application of the assumption of risk doctrine. Before the court were two cases: Katleski v. Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc. and Galante v. Karlis.1 The issues raised in the Katleski and Galante appeals concerned the doctrine’s confinement to injuries resulting from participation in athletics and recreation and its inapplicability to unreasonably enhanced risks.
The primary assumption of risk doctrine holds that “[a] person who chooses to participate in a sport or recreative activity consents to certain risks that are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation.”2 In Katleski, a golfer was struck by an errant golf ball while competing in a tournament at a golf course owned and operated by the defendant. The court held that the assumption of risk doctrine applies and precludes Katleski’s claim because the risk of being struck by a ball while golfing is inherent in the game.
The court also found that upon the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, Katleski failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the inherent risks were unreasonably enhanced by the placement of a tee box. The court reasoned that Katleski had to “show that the design enhanced the risk of being struck by a ball beyond what is customary in the sport.” The Court of Appeals concluded that the placement of the tee box may have “increased the risk of injury to some degree, [but] tolerance of that increased risk” served “to promote the enjoyment of the athletic activity,” which is “the underlying purpose of the assumption of risk doctrine.”
Conversely, in Galante, a golfer was injured while operating a golf cart that collided with a vehicle in the parking lot of the golf course. The Court of Appeals held that the assumption of risk doctrine does not apply to Galante’s claim as the plaintiff was not participating in a protected athletic or recreational activity at the time of the incident.
The Court of Appeals holding further defined the circumstances in which the assumption of risk doctrine will be applied. The determination requires an initial inquiry into whether the plaintiff was engaged in athletic or recreational activities at the time of injury. If the plaintiff was, the analysis then continues to whether the defendant unreasonably enhanced any risks beyond what is customary in the sport. If not, the doctrine will shield the defendant from liability.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Amanda Miller, counsel, at amiller@barclaydamon.com; Matthew Larkin, Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area chair, at mlarkin@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.
12025 NY Slip Op 02178 (2025).
2Anand v. Kapoor, 15 N.Y.3d 946 (2010).