Primak v. Chai Lifeline, Inc.

Background

This diversity action concerns one negligence claim. Azriel Primak alleged that he fell and broke his leg at an event sponsored by Chai Lifeline, Inc., also identified in the caption as Congregation Chai Lifeline, on May 18, 2017. At the time, Primak was a seventeen-year-old volunteer for Chai Lifeline, which the opinion describes as an organization that hosts recreational events and activities for ill and disabled children.

The event included a color run, a barbecue, and a foam rave. During the foam rave, participants were surrounded by soap bubbles about three feet high on a slightly sloped grassy area. The foam covered the ground, and Primak could not see his feet. After he took about five to ten steps into the foam-covered area, his foot became stuck in mud and he fell, breaking his leg. Primak testified that he had never attended a foam rave or similar event, had never been to the area, and did not know before entering that the ground beneath the foam was muddy, slippery, and slimy.

Motion and Legal Standard

Chai Lifeline moved for summary judgment on the sole theory that Primak assumed the risk of his injury by voluntarily participating in the event. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the facts favorably to the party opposing the motion.

The parties agreed that New York law applied. Under New York’s primary assumption-of-risk doctrine, which can eliminate a defendant’s duty of care in sports or recreational activities, a participant accepts risks that are commonly understood to be inherent in and connected with the activity. A participant does not accept concealed or unreasonably increased risks, or unique dangerous conditions beyond the activity’s usual dangers. The participant’s awareness is assessed in light of the individual’s skill and experience and what a reasonable person of similar participatory age or experience would know.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that material factual disputes prevented summary judgment. Chai Lifeline had not established through undisputed facts that muddy ground was inherent in foam raves or that the condition was open and obvious. The court noted that instructions for the foam generator recommended that users place carpet padding or another nonslippery or absorbent surface to avoid the danger involved here.

The court also found no undisputed facts showing that Primak knew of and appreciated the risk before entering the foam. Primak testified that this was his first foam rave, that he did not know what such an event would involve, that he assumed Chai Lifeline would have covered the ground to make it safe, and that he saw no evidence of mud outside or beneath the foam. The opinion also states that Chai Lifeline did not suggest that anyone warned Primak or other participants and that Primak did not see anyone fall before entering.

Chai Lifeline argued that Primak assumed the risk because he could feel the mud during the thirty to sixty seconds before he fell. The court rejected that argument at the summary-judgment stage, explaining that Chai Lifeline provided no authority or reason to conclude that a participant assumes a risk discovered immediately after beginning the activity and less than a minute before being injured. The court distinguished a prior case involving a professional baseball player who had already seen mud on the field and complained about water before slipping.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni denied Chai Lifeline’s motion for summary judgment. The ruling left the negligence claim unresolved rather than deciding whether Chai Lifeline was ultimately liable. The court directed the parties to propose three mutually agreeable trial dates and noted that it could refer them to a settlement conference if both agreed.

Procedural Note

The opinion states that the defendant moved for summary judgment on September 9, 2020, even though the order is dated April 17, 2020. The text does not explain this apparent date inconsistency.