Carrero-Santiago v Asphalt Green, Inc.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury and premises/recreational activity liability arising from a school recess basketball incident involving a contractor that provided a recess enhancement program.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County denied defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
The court held that defendants owed no duty of care to plaintiff because she was not a party to the contract between Public School 306 and Asphalt Green, Inc., and none of the Espinal exceptions for third-party tort liability applied. The court also held that, even if a duty existed, plaintiff voluntarily assumed the obvious risk of being struck by a wayward basketball by standing 10 to 12 feet from the court during recess.
Background
Plaintiff worked as a New York City Department of Education (DOE) school aide at Public School 306 (PS 306) from 1999 to 2018. She alleged that while supervising children on the playground during recess, she was struck in the back by a basketball that ricocheted off a hoop. PS 306 had contracted with Asphalt Green, Inc. to provide a recess enhancement program, and Asphalt Green hired Terrance A. Brown as a basketball coach. A comprehensive injury report stated that Brown threw the ball, but Brown later testified that a student threw it and that he did not see plaintiff get hit. The record showed no evidence that anyone intentionally threw the ball at plaintiff and indicated that the incident occurred during an ordinary basketball game played by elementary school children.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court denied the motion by Asphalt Green, Inc. and Terrance A. Brown for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, allowing plaintiff's negligence claims to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, granted summary judgment to defendants, and dismissed the complaint. It found that defendants established prima facie that they owed no duty to plaintiff under the contract with PS 306. The court ruled that defendants did not launch a force or instrument of harm, plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on defendants' contractual performance, and the contract did not entirely displace PS 306's own duty to maintain safety. The court further held that plaintiff, a longtime school aide familiar with playground basketball and errant balls, assumed the inherent risk of being hit by standing near the court during recess.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces New York's rule that a contractual obligation alone does not create tort liability to noncontracting third parties absent one of the recognized Espinal exceptions. It also confirms that the primary assumption of risk doctrine can bar recovery not only for participants, but also for spectators or bystanders who voluntarily place themselves close to an obvious recreational hazard.
A school contractor supervising recess was not liable to a school aide hit by a rebounding basketball where the aide was not a party to the contract, no Espinal exception created a duty, and the risk of a wayward basketball near an active court during recess was open, obvious, and voluntarily assumed.