Plaintiff is an experienced tennis coach who was injured while conducting a tennis lesson on a rubber floor area that was damaged with depressions and cracks. Defendant established that plaintiff assumed the risks associated with playing or coaching tennis on this rubber floor area, which was not a tennis court and had open and obvious defects. The defense of assumption of the risk does not require that a plaintiff foresee the exact manner in which the injury occurs. All that is required is that the plaintiff be aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results. The fact that plaintiff was coaching and not playing is of no consequence. Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.
Oetiker v. Hudson Riv. Park Trust, NY Slip Op 07509 (1st Dep't December 29, 2022)
