March 31, 2008

Assumption of Risk


The doctrine of Assumption of Risk is often used by the courts to dismiss lawsuits where the injured party had knowledge of the injury causing defect and an appreciation of the resulting risk. Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Thomas Feinman was faced with this issue recently in the case of Berman v. Rolling River Associates Ltd. On March 17, 2008, the judge denied the defendant camp's motion for summary judgment dismissing a child's lawsuit to recover for the injuries suffered at a gymnastics class when she fell and broke her elbow. The claim was that the 7-year-old stepped directly on an apparatus that rolled over causing her to lose her balance and fall. The child's parent argued that there were no instructors at the apparatus, while defendants argued they provided adequate supervision. Defendants argued assumption of the risk in that the child consented to engage in the activity, thus consented to the inherent risk. The judge disagreed, stating it could not be determined that this child, participating in a gymnastics class for the first time, appreciated the risks associated with the apparatus. It noted plaintiff did not appreciate the risk given her age and level of experience, thus the doctrine of assumption of risk did not provide a bar to recovery. www.foleygriffin.com

March 25, 2008

Serious Injury 2008

What is a serious injury under the law? www.foleygriffin.com

We often struggle with the question as to whether our clients have suffered a "serious physical injury" under the law. The answer to the questions is a mix of legal and medical principles. The law sets forth nine (9) categories of "serious physical injury." If a client meets this threshold of "physical injury" the claim will survive. This issue is addressed on a daily basis. Recently, the second department upheld the plaintiff's claim in Altreche v. Gilmar Masonary Corp. The Court in Altreche found that the plaintiff did in fact suffer a "serious physical injury" under Insurance Law section 5102(d). The Court stated: "The opinion of the plaintiff's treating physician was based both on his contemporaneous and his most recent examinations of the plaintiff, as well as upon his review of, inter alia, the plaintiff's cervical and lumbar magnetic resonance imaging reports, which showed, among other things, disc bulges at C2 through C5 and a disc herniation at L5-S1. He opined that the plaintiff's spinal injuries and range of motion limitations observed were permanent, and were causally related to the subject accident." www.foleygriffin.com