<p style="text-align: justify;">In <a href="http://blog.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Jamjyan-v.-West-Mountain-Ski-Club-Inc..pdf">Jamjyan v. West Mountain Ski Club, Inc.</a><em>,</em> the plaintiff was injured at a snow tubing park. She commenced this personal injury action against the defendants, the owners and operators of the tubing park, alleging that a park attendant caused the accident by prematurely unhooking the tow rope from the snow tube the plaintiff was sitting in while being towed to the top of the hill. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Appellate Division, Second Department reviewed the facts and concurred with the lower court’s decision in its granting of summary judgment. Although there is an inherent danger in skiing and snowboarding, the other prong of the test was that the defendant was not reckless or engaged in conduct not inherent in the activity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Assumption of risk is not an absolute defense, but a measure of a defendant's duty of care. Here, in opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the allegedly unexpected action of the tubing park attendant, in prematurely unhooking the plaintiff's snow tube from the tow line, created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport of snow tubing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Plaintiff also provided an affidavit from an expert stating that the defendants’ actions were not reasonable and would foresee a dangerous condition.</p>
Thanks to Paul Vitale for his contribution to this post.