Tag: About Minchew & Santner

Municipal Liability, Parks and Recreation

Municipal Claims in Parks

I was injured while watching my daughter’s softball game. A foul ball struck me and I needed to be hospitalized. Can I make a claim against the City?

Possibly. Municipal claims are always complicated with multiple levels of substantive rules and procedural rules that make it difficult to bring any case. There are different substantive rules for the location of an accident, whether it occurred on a street, sidewalk, public way or park. There are also complicated procedural rules for municipal claims. All claims must be made in writing within 90 days after the accident to the Comptroller or the Corporation Counsel on an approved form. Claimants must make themselves available for a municipal hearing (something like a deposition) and a physical examination. Then, a summons and complaint must be filed within one year and ninety days after the accident. (Some agencies have different requirements and shorter statute of limitations.)

In the case of your daughter’s softball game, it required some legal research, but it appears that you might have a case. Legal precedents are cases already decided by Courts. Courts write and publish written decisions to guide judges. Courts are obligated to decide cases which have similar facts to have a similar outcome. The legal term for this principal is called Stare Decisis. The difficulty was trying to find a decided case with similar facts to your case.

Your case depends upon where you were standing or sitting when the ball hit you. As it turns out, there was a court case with similar facts to your case. The municipality has a duty to maintain the screening in a park behind home plate. If you were behind home plate and there was no screening or the screening was poorly maintained (with holes so that the softball could pass through and strike fans), then you could have a municipal claim. See Starke v Smithtown, 155 AD2d 526 (2d Dept. 1989). If you were standing or sitting in foul territory down the first or third base lines, then the municipality has no obligation to protect fans.

Claims Against Municipality, Infant, negligent supervision, School Liability

Assumption of Risk

A recent Court of Appeals touches on an issue present in two prior posts: one post was on injuries at school, and a second post dealt with exculpatory clauses. The legal issue is Assumption of Risk.

The Assumption of Risk rule announced in 1929 by legendary Judge Cardozo of the Court of the Appeals states: “one who takes part in . . . a sport accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary.” The rule was given an updated interpretation on April 27, 2023 in the cases of Grady and Secky.

Secky was a basketball player at New Paltz High School. The Coach asked players to participate in rebounding drill with another player to compete for a rebound. Secky got the worst of the competition and was thrown into bleachers, causing a right shoulder injury.

Grady was a baseball player at Chenango Valley High School. Grady was participating in a fielding drill with five players and two coaches. Grady was stationed at first base. To Grady’s right (between first and second base) there was a seven foot by seven foot fence. And on the other side of fence was a second player stationed at “short first base.” There was also a thrid baseman, short stop and second baseman. One coach was hitting ground balls to the third baseman who was throwing to the first baseman. A second coach (at the same time) was hitting ground balls to the short stop who was directed to throw the ball to the second baseman, and then the second baseman would throw the ball to “short first base.” Unfortunately for Grady, one of the balls from the second baseman, missed the “short first baseman,” went past the fence, and struck Grady on the right side of his face, causing significant vision loss.

The Court of Appeals overruled the Supreme Court and the Appellate division and found Grady has a case that can go to jury and let the jury decide if this baseball drill was unique and created dangers over and above the usual dangers of baseball.

Secky was not as fortunate. The drill did not unreasonably increase the risk of injury beyond that inherent in the sport of basketball.