A hockey puck hit me during practice. I play for my college team. I sustained a concussion. My doctor says I will have to miss most of the season because of the injury and I could have long term injuries to my brain. Can I sue the school for my injuries?

Generally, you do not have a claim for sports injuries. In a prior post, I explained that there is a legal doctrine called assumption of risk. Basically, the doctrine states that if you put yourself in a position of risk, you are responsible for the consequences. So when it comes to sporting events, players cannot generally sue.

As a student athlete, you are not considered an employee of the school or the NCAA. Therefore you could sue the school or NCAA because employees cannot sue their employers. Worker’s Compensation Law § 29.

As a college player, you have exhibited a certain level of skill. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that you did not appreciate the risks of practicing hockey. In Petretti v Jefferson Valley Raquet Club, Inc, 246 AD2d 583, 668 NYS2d 221 (2d Dept. 1998) the court ruled that a novice tennis player could present a case to the jury when she was struck by a teacher in the eye with a tennis ball. The court reasoned that the novice tennis player could not fully appreciate the risks involved.

In order to play hockey at a college level, you have shown a level of skill and understanding of the dangers of playing such a physical sport. Thus, your school can successfully argue that you appreciated the risks involved in participating in hockey.

Risk Assumed Under Compulsion

Probably the best argument you can make is an exception to the assumption of risk doctrine. You can argue legally that if you were “compelled” to participate, you did not assume the risk of playing hockey voluntarily.

In order to show that the risk was assumed under compulsion, the injured party is required to establish both that there was (1) a direction by a superior to do the act and (2) that there was an economic or other compulsion that forced compliance with the direction. Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 548 NYS2d 29 (1989). That means the injured party has the burden of proof to show the direction from a superior and the economic or other compulsion.

In Berewill v National Basketball Association, 279 AD2d 292, 719 NYS2d 231 (1st Dept. 2001) New York Knickerbocker Charles Oakley injured a veteran sports photographer. The photographer argued that the Knickerbocker club and the National Basketball Association had restricted his location near the basketball court. The injured photographer argued that he was put into harm’s way. The Court rejected this argument because the Knickerbocker club and the National Basketball Association ” . . . did not enhance existing risks or create existing risks not inherent to the sport. . . ”

Duty to Act Reasonably Even Under Compulsion

Sports injuries are not the only assumption of risk cases. In Pesce v City of New York, 147 AD2d 537, 537 NYS2d 613 (2d Dept. 1989) the Court found that an employee was compelled to assume a risk moving metal lockers. The injured employee was standing on top of a high-low loader in order to hold metal lockers in place during transport. This did not end well for the employee. But even though the Court ruled that the employee was “compelled” to assume a risk, he still had an obligation to act reasonably under the circumstances. Thus, even if a person is compelled to assume a risk, he still must choose to act reasonably. A jury must determine if a person acts reasonably.

Similar Case

Unfortunately for you, a recent decision (about two weeks ago) dismissed a similar case. That Court ruled that a college athlete is not “compelled” to participate in practice. Even though the athlete risked losing her scholarship by not practicing, this was still not enough of a “compulsion” to ignore the defense of assumption of risk. The Court found the injured athlete assumed the risk of being struck by a lacrosse ball. The Court dismissed the case. Greiber v National Collegiate Athletic Association, _ AD3d _, 2025 Slip Op 06693 (2d Dept. December 3, 2025). See also Duffy v Suffolk County High School Hockey League, Inc., 289 AD2d 368, 734 NYS2d 613 (2d Dept 2001).

Therefore, your claim against the school and NCAA would not be successful.

By James Santner, Esq.

If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.