Williams v. Lombardini
| Decision Date | 30 January 1963 |
| Citation | 238 N.Y.S.2d 63,38 Misc.2d 146 |
| Parties | Stuart L. WILLIAMS, an Infant by Robert T. Williams, His Guardian ad Litem, and Robert T. Williams, Plaintiffs, v. Adam LOMBARDINI and Grace Lombardini, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Chernin & Gold, Binghamton (Bruno Colapietro, Binghamton, of counsel), for defendants, for the motion.
John M. Rennell, Binghamton, for plaintiffs, opposed.
This is a motion by the defendants for a summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint in a negligence action on the ground that the action has no merit.
The plaintiff, Stuart L. Williams, was injured while performing on a device known as a trampoline. It was one of several maintained by the defendants in the fenced-in area at the rear of an ice cream stand operated by them on Court Street in the City of Binghamton, New York. Access to the trampolines was gained by purchasing a ticket for their use at the ice cream stand.
Some time in the late evening of July 11, 1961 plaintiff with another young man and two female companions entered upon the premises, after purchasing three tickets from Mr. Lombardini for the use of the trampolines. Williams admits in his answering affidavit that he read a notice and certain rules which were posted as to the use of the trampolines. The notice stated: , and one of the rules read: 'Do not attempt difficult tricks.'
After the purchase of the tickets plaintiff and two of his companions went to the trampolines and started bouncing on them. These devices were approximately 6' X 12' in size. The bed or mat was attached to metal springs which in turn were connected with a steel plate on top of a framework of 2' X 10' planks. The metal plate and framework were covered by a padding of foam rubber but the springs were exposed. The bed of the trampoline was stretched over a pit about 39" examination before trial that various simple maneuvers might be performed thereon, such as jumping up and down-- which exercise was known as a foot bounce. One could also perform so-called knee drops, seat drops, front drops and back drops.
The plaintiff, after using the trampoline for about half an hour, undertook to perform a front flip or somersault and was thrown off balance and injured. He described the accident in his examination before trial as follows: 'Well, I was trying to do a front flip, one complete flip, and land on my feet, and I went over about ninety degrees too far and my nose hit on, well, off the edge of the mat on the edge of the pit, whatever it was, a board or steel plate or something.--I bounced up and down a couple of times--then I just did a somersault in the air, and then straightened out and tried to land on my feet'.
He further testified that he knew of nothing that was defective on the trampoline itself and as far as he was concerned, it was in good working order. It does not appear that there was anything about its construction that concealed any dangers or defects.
The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is based upon the contention that plaintiff assumed the risk incidental to the use of this device, which was readily apparent to all who used it.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp.
...N.Y.S.2d 728 (4th Dep't 1998), appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 818, 685 N.Y.S.2d 420, 708 N.E.2d 177 (1999), and Williams v. Lombardini, 38 Misc.2d 146, 238 N.Y.S.2d 63 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1963), to demonstrate that, under New York law, a court can find assumption of the risk as a matter of law in a tramp......
-
Duchesneau v. Cornell Univ., CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-4856
...assumed risk of "double jumping" despite warnings on trampoline that were deemed adequate as a matter of law); Williams v. Lombardini, 238 N.Y.S.2d 63, 64-65 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1963) (determining plaintiff assumed risk where he admitted seeing rule that prohibited "difficult tricks" but attempt......
-
Kungle v. Austin, 49970
...negligence as a matter of law and that she had assumed the risk of the injury that she received. The second case is Williams v. Lombardini, 38 Misc.2d 146, 238 N.Y.S.2d 63. There the plaintiff, a 19-year-old college student, was injured when he tried to do a forward flip on a trampoline. He......
-
Ragni v. Lincoln-Devon Bounceland, Inc., LINCOLN-DEVON
...of a hazard which is open and obvious and as well known to the invitee as to the proprietor * * * (Cases Cited.) In Williams v. Lombardini, 38 Misc.2d 146, 238 N.Y.S.2d 63, plaintiff was injured when he hit his nose on the padded frame of a similar outdoor trampoline. The court said at page......