Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<p style="text-align: justify;">In<em> <a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Infant-v-Loisaida-Inc.pdf">Infant v. Loisaida Inc</a>, </em>plaintiff, a thirteen-year-old, was injured when, as he was fielding at third base in a baseball game, a baserunner slid into the base and collided with his left shin. Infant plaintiff brought suit alleging negligence of the league for his injuries. Defendants argued that the plaintiff assumed the risk, as he had played baseball for seven years. The lower court dismissed the case against the defendants and plaintiff appealed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the lower Court’s decision under the doctrine of assumption of risk, as knew the inherent risks of the game. He was injured in a common play in baseball.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the baserunner's metal cleats created an enhanced or concealed risk that was not assumed. The little league rules that defendant was required to follow permitted the wearing of such cleats, and both the 13–year–old infant plaintiff and his father testified that they observed the baserunner wearing metal cleats. Plaintiffs have not shown that defendant failed to provide safety equipment that would have prevented the inherent risks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Since recovery is precluded by the fact that he assumed the risks inherent in playing baseball, plaintiffs may not recover under a theory of negligent supervision</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thanks to Paul Vitale for his contribution to this post.  Please email <a href="mailto:gcoats@wcmlaw.com">Georgia Coats</a> with any questions.</p>