Morgan v. State
| Decision Date | 20 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 76243,76243 |
| Citation | 618 N.Y.S.2d 967,162 Misc.2d 984 |
| Parties | Sean MORGAN and Valerie Morgan, Claimants, 1 v. The STATE of New York, Defendant. (Claim) |
| Court | New York Court of Claims |
On January 11, 1986, claimant sustained severe personal injuries when the two-man bobsled he was driving crashed during the National Bobsled Championship at the Olympic Bobsled Run on Mount Van Hoevenberg, Town of North Elba, Essex County. The crash occurred in the exit chute section of the run beyond the finish line. The gravamen of claimant's negligence cause of action rests upon the purportedly dangerous condition of the exit chute. The trial was bifurcated and thus issues related to liability are currently before the court.
It merits noting at the outset that claimant was an experienced bobsledder. He started bobsledding at Mount Van Hoevenberg when he was 8 years old. He was 30 years old at the time of the accident. His father had competed in bobsledding and nine of claimant's ten siblings had been involved in the sport of bobsledding. Indeed, one of claimant's brothers died in a tragic bobsledding accident in 1981, vividly illustrating the extreme risk and danger inherent in a sport where competitors come down a mountain on ice at speeds approaching 100 miles per hour.
The bobsled run at Mount Van Hoevenberg was the only bobsled run in North America at the time of claimant's accident. 2 Originally constructed for the 1932 Winter Olympic Games in Lake Placid, the bobsled run was completely reconstructed between 1978 and 1980 in preparation for the 1980 Winter Olympic Games. Although the distance, turns and run layout remained the same, the reconstruction project modernized the run by, among other things, using concrete for the track so that it could be refrigerated.
Another change made in the bobsled run, which is particularly critical to the instant claim, involved a redesign of the area in which bobsleds traveled after crossing the finish line. The area immediately following the finish is of obvious importance since bobsleds often reach their maximum speed at the finish.
The court now turns to the issue of liability. Claimant, who had competed extensively at the run both before and after its reconstruction, testified about the changes in the track in the area beyond the finish line. Prior to reconstruction, a bobsled would cross the finish line, traverse a short flat area and then proceed up a hill. From the time it crossed the finish line until it reached the top of the hill, the bobsled would remain in a chute. Claimant stated that the chute was about 80 yards in length. The walls of the chute were composed of wood covered with ice and were continuous with no openings. The walls were approximately three to four feet high and the width of the chute was approximately four to five feet. Claimant testified that after leaving the exit chute the bobsled would then proceed into an open snow-covered area. Once a sled stopped, it was pulled back through the open area to the loading ramp, where it would be placed on a truck for transporting.
The exit chute was lengthened as part of the reconstruction of the bobsled run. The new exit chute took the sleds over a flat area following the finish, then up the first hill, onto a second flat area, and then up a second hill. The exit chute, which was longer than before reconstruction, was composed of concrete. After the first hill, in the second flat area, a 20-foot opening was created in the left concrete wall. The bobsleds were removed from the track from such opening, and testimony established that in a normal run the sleds would be stopped by the time they reached the opening.
During competition, the entire exit chute had snow in it to help slow the bobsleds after they crossed the finish line. Bales of hay were placed at the two ends of the opening in the left wall of the exit chute to afford protection in the event a sled came in contact with the concrete abutment. The condition and composition of the exit chute when it was not covered by ice and snow is depicted by claimant's exhibits 5 through 9. Its appearance during competition is reflected by defendant's exhibits C through I. Defendant's exhibit J, a videotape with footage of, inter alia, bobsled competition during the 1980 Winter Olympic Games, also provides a brief glimpse of the exit chute and the opening in the concrete wall as it appeared during the Olympics.
On the date of the accident, claimant was the driver of a two-man bobsled competing in the National Championship. His brakeman was Pat Murphy. Claimant had competed in bobsledding since the early 1960s and had been licensed as a driver in 1978 by the Federatione Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobaganning (hereinafter F.I.B.T.) after completing a one-week school in Germany. He had driven sleds on the reconstructed Mount Van Hoevenberg run numerous times both in practice and competition and was endeavoring to capture a spot on the 1988 United States Winter Olympic bobsledding team.
Claimant recalled that the race commenced at about 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, January 11, 1986. The race involved two runs on Saturday and two runs on Sunday. He completed the first run on Saturday without incident. Approximately an hour after completion of the first run, he began his second run. Claimant stated that he went into turn number 2 "too late," 3 catching the end of the turn, which caused the sled to tip over. The sled remained tipped over or on its right side through turns 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. During the time the sled was tipped over the brakeman fell out. Claimant, however, remained in the sled and in turn 8 the sled flipped back into an upright position on all four runners. Claimant then grabbed the steering ropes and attempted to maneuver the sled through the rest of the course. According to claimant the sled remained out of control, banging against the chute walls, and the steering was not working correctly. Nevertheless, he managed to keep the sled upright through the remaining 8 turns, including turn 16 and across the finish line. He estimated the speed of the sled at 40 to 60 miles per hour when he crossed the finish line.
Claimant testified that after crossing the finish line the sled started to hug the left wall of the exit chute and would not steer to the right. At approximately the beginning of the first hill of the exit chute, claimant attempted to move back to the second seat in the bobsled so he could apply the brakes. However, he was not able to get completely into the brakeman's seat and thus could pull the brake handles only about half way up. He recalled that the sled was moving back and forth striking both walls of the exit chute while he was attempting to apply the brakes. The sled proceeded up the first hill and into the second flat area. As the sled reached the opening in the left wall of the exit chute it moved to the left, partially into the opening, and then "hit the abutment" where the left wall continued at the end of the opening. Several bales of hay had been placed in front of the abutment. Claimant was knocked unconscious by the impact. The instant claim, premised upon negligence, ensued.
Precedent directly addressing liability in bobsledding is scant. Looking to other jurisdictions for guidance is not a viable option since the only bobsled run on the North American continent at the time of the accident was on Mount Van Hoevenberg (see generally, Annotation, Liability of Operator of Skiing, Tobogganing, or Bobsledding Facilities for Injury to Patron or Participant, 94 A.L.R.2d 1431, § 11). The few reported cases from this jurisdiction addressing bobsled accidents offer little guidance germane to the issue before the court. Several of the cases involved injuries sustained by passengers who paid to ride on a bobsled operated by State employees (Kaiser v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 482, 294 N.Y.S.2d 410, appeal dismissed 23 N.Y.2d 866, 298 N.Y.S.2d 74, 245 N.E.2d 806; Ross v. State of New York, 283 App.Div. 834, 128 N.Y.S.2d 628; Cunningham v. State of New York, 264 App.Div. 811, 32 N.Y.S.2d 275). In the only reported case involving an accident by a participant in a competition at the bobsled run, the claim was premised upon a purported lack of proper medical personnel at the facility and the court noted that "claimant makes no claim for the original accident and injury * * * " (Clark v. State of New York, 195 Misc. 581, 583, 89 N.Y.S.2d 132, affd. 276 App.Div. 10, 93 N.Y.S.2d 28, affd. 302 N.Y. 795, 99 N.E.2d 300).
In the absence of pertinent precedent directly addressing accidents by bobsled competitors, the court turns to cases involving sports-related injuries. The basic principles were set forth by Judge Cardoza in Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., 250 N.Y. 479, 482-483, 166 N.E. 173, as follows:
More recently, the Court of Appeals has explained that the nature of the risk assumed is a measure of the defendant's duty of care (Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 439, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49, 502 N.E.2d 964). Thus, participants in a sporting competition, whether professional or amateur, generally are deemed to have consented to "those injury-causing events which are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation" (id.; see, Owen v. R.J.S. Safety Equip., 79 N.Y.2d 967, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. State
...sled. The Court of Claims, after trial, held that the State was liable for Morgan's injuries and ordered a trial on damages (162 Misc.2d 984, 618 N.Y.S.2d 967). The Appellate Division modified on the law and facts and dismissed the claim (229 A.D.2d 737, 645 N.Y.S.2d 614). We Beck v. Scimec......