Locilento v. John A. Coleman Catholic High School

• Decision Date: 30 December 1987
• Citation: 523 N.Y.S.2d 198,134 A.D.2d 39
• Parties: , 44 Ed. Law Rep. 545 Richard LOCILENTO, Respondent-Appellant, v. JOHN A. COLEMAN CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL et al., Appellants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 198

523 N.Y.S.2d 198

134 A.D.2d 39, 44 Ed. Law Rep. 545

Richard LOCILENTO, Respondent-Appellant, v. JOHN A. COLEMAN CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Dec. 30, 1987.

Edward J. Lackaye, Jr. (Timothy Connick, of counsel), Poughkeepsie, for appellants-respondents.

Ryan, Dell Vechia, Roach & Ryan (Ward W. Ingalsbe, III, of counsel), Kingston, for respondent-appellant.

Before KANE, J.P. and MAIN, CASEY, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.

WEISS, Justice.

On November 1, 1981, plaintiff, a 17-year-old senior at defendant John A. Coleman Catholic High School (hereinafter Coleman), sustained a dislocated shoulder during an intramural tackle football game at the school. The game was an annual, informal contest between students, and was officiated by two instructors from Coleman. No protective equipment was provided, and plaintiff was injured while attempting to tackle another player. Plaintiff commenced this action for money damages, alleging that defendants failed to properly supervise the game and to provide the necessary equipment and training. Previously, we reversed an order consolidating this action with a separate action arising from a similar incident at Coleman ( Bradford v. Coleman Catholic High School, 110 A.D.2d 965, 488 N.Y.S.2d 105). In the instant action, the jury found defendants liable and apportioned culpable conduct at 40% against plaintiff and 60% against defendants. Both parties have appealed. ^*

Defendants initially maintain that Supreme Court erred in not dismissing the case as a matter of law since plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of proximate cause. We disagree. To establish a prima facie case, plaintiff was required to demonstrate that defendants' negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury ( see, Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 414 N.E.2d 666). Plaintiff was not required to eliminate all other potential causes ( see, Koster v. Greenberg, 120 A.D.2d 644, 645, 502 N.Y.S.2d 395; Mortensen v. Memorial Hosp., 105 A.D.2d 151, 157-158, 483 N.Y.S.2d 264), but simply to present a sufficient evidentiary basis from which causation could reasonably be inferred ( see, Koester v. State of New York, 90 A.D.2d 357, 361, 457 N.Y.S.2d 655; Cole v. New York Racing Assn., 24 A.D.2d 993, 994, 266 N.Y.S.2d 267, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 761, 270 N.Y.S.2d 421, 217 N.E.2d 144).

In our view, the jury could readily infer that defendants' failure to provide protective equipment was a proximate cause of plaintiff's shoulder injury. Plaintiff's expert witness and orthopedic surgeon both essentially testified that shoulder pads serve to decrease the potential for shoulder injuries. This testimony was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that the failure to equip plaintiff with shoulder pads was a proximate cause of his resulting injury ( see, Tashjian v. North Colonie Cent. School Dist. No. 5, 50 A.D.2d 691, 375 N.Y.S.2d 467, lv. denied 38 N.Y.2d 708, 382 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 345 N.E.2d 605; Moschella v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 48 A.D.2d 856, 369 N.Y.S.2d 10). In so holding, we fully recognize that neither witness could confirm that shoulder pads would have prevented plaintiff's injury. It is also common knowledge that tackling injuries of this nature can occur even when players are professionally trained and equipped. The fact remains, however, that the likelihood of injury was greater because of defendants' failure to provide the necessary protective equipment ( cf., Kaufman v. City of New York, 30 Misc.2d 285, 214 N.Y.S.2d 767). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion for a directed verdict.

Next, defendants argue that since plaintiff voluntarily participated in the game, fully aware of the potential hazards, he assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law. Again, we disagree. Defendants' argument fails to make the distinction between express and implied assumption of risk (see, Arbegast v. Board of Educ. of S. New Berlin Cent. School, 65 N.Y.2d 161, 169-170, 490 N.Y.S.2d 751, 480 N.E.2d 365; Mesick v. State of New York, 118 A.D.2d 214, 218-219, 504 N.Y.S.2d 279, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 611, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 502 N.E.2d 1007). Here, there is no suggestion of an express assumption which would in fact act as a bar to recovery (see, id.). Rather, plaintiff's voluntary participation clearly speaks to an implied assumption, which is simply a factor relevant in the assessment of culpable conduct (see, id.; Lamphear v. State of New York, 91 A.D.2d 791, 458 N.Y.S.2d 71). Defendants rely on Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49, 502 N.E.2d 964, and Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 496 N.Y.S.2d 726, 487 N.E.2d 553, yet these cases are inapposite for each involved a professional athlete. Thus, the jury was properly allowed to apportion culpability. Parenthetically, no challenge has been made to the actual apportionment.

We further find that Supreme Court acted well within its discretion in allowing L. Stanley Schulman to testify as an expert in the field of scholastic sports activities ( see, Werner v. Sun Oil Co., 65 N.Y.2d 839, 493 N.Y.S.2d 125, 482 N.E.2d 921). Schulman had educational degrees in the field of recreation and was employed as an athletic director for several years. That he never actually coached a football team or officiated a football game may have affected the weight to be accorded his testimony, but did not vitiate his qualifications. While defendants complain that Schulman was permitted to testify as to the standards promulgated by the New York State Public High School Athletic Association, which Schulman indicated applied to private schools and intramural events, defendants failed to controvert this testimony either through cross-examination or an independent expert. In any event, the jury was properly instructed that it was at liberty to disagree with an expert witness.

Finally, defendants maintain that Supreme Court committed reversible error in providing a charge relative to plaintiff's "dangerous condition" theory. In our previous...