Clarifying Duty of Care and Assumption of Risk in Bystander Injury: Hankey v. Ogdensburg City School District

Introduction

The case of Brandon M. Hankey et al. vs. Ogdensburg City School District (2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 253) presents a significant development in the realm of negligence law, particularly concerning the doctrines of duty of care and assumption of risk in situations involving bystanders. The plaintiffs, Brandon M. Hankey and his spouse, initiated a negligence action after Hankey was allegedly injured by a hockey puck while performing his job as a food delivery driver at the Ogdensburg City School District's sporting facility. The crux of the legal dispute centers around whether the school district owed a duty of care to Hankey and whether the doctrine of assumption of risk precludes his claim.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of New York, Third Department, affirmed the lower court's decision to deny the defendant school's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the Ogdensburg City School District owed a duty of care to Hankey and that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether this duty was breached. The court rejected the school district's reliance on the primary assumption of risk doctrine, emphasizing that Hankey was not a consenting participant or a willing bystander to the sporting activities occurring at the facility. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied, allowing the negligence claim to proceed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively engaged with existing legal precedents to frame its decision:

ALVAREZ v. PROSPECT HOSP. (68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 [1986]): Established the standard for summary judgment, requiring the moving party to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
Custodi v. Town of Amherst (20 N.Y.3d 83, 88 [2012]): Defined primary assumption of risk, elucidating that it applies to consenting participants who are aware of and voluntarily assume the risks associated with an activity.
Smero v. City of Saratoga Springs (160 A.D.3d 1169, 1170 [3d Dept 2018]): Expanded the assumption of risk doctrine to include spectators and bystanders, provided their engagement was consensual and voluntary.
D'AMICO v. CHRISTIE (71 N.Y.2d 76, 85 [1987]): Affirmed that landowners have a duty to act reasonably to prevent harm to those on their property, which includes controlling third parties on the premises.
Other cases such as Spiteri v. Bisson, Hae Seng KIM v. FLUSHING YMCA, and GAYLE v. CITY OF NEW YORK were referenced to support arguments related to assumption of risk and proximate cause.

These precedents collectively influenced the court’s approach in interpreting the duty of care and the applicability of the assumption of risk in this context.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning was multifaceted:

Assumption of Risk Doctrine: The school district attempted to invoke the primary assumption of risk, arguing that Hankey was aware of and voluntarily exposed himself to the risks inherent in the sporting activities. However, the court found this inapplicable as Hankey was neither a participant nor a voluntary bystander engaged in the sporting event but was performing a job function. This distinction is crucial, as established in Custodi v. Town of Amherst, emphasizing that assumption of risk requires consent and voluntariness.
Duty of Care: The court underscored that landowners, including institutions like schools, have a general duty to prevent harm to individuals on their premises. This duty extends to controlling third parties and ensuring the safety of the environment, especially when aware of potential risks. The maintenance worker's instructions to Hankey to place deliveries in a high-risk area without adequate protective measures raised questions about negligence.
Foreseeability and Proximate Cause: The court examined whether the injury was a foreseeable consequence of the school's actions or omissions. Given that the gym teacher had explicit instructions about permissible behavior and the potential for pucks to be mishandled, the court found that the injury was foreseeable, and there were triable issues regarding proximate cause.
Summary Judgment Standard: Applying ALVAREZ v. PROSPECT HOSP., the court determined that the school district failed to demonstrate the absence of material facts requiring a trial, thereby justifying the denial of the motion for summary judgment.

Impact

This judgment has several implications for future cases and the broader area of negligence law:

Expanded Understanding of Duty of Care: Schools and similar institutions may face heightened scrutiny regarding their duty to supervise and protect not just students but also third parties performing services on their premises.
Clarification of Assumption of Risk: The ruling delineates the boundaries of the assumption of risk doctrine, making it clear that non-consenting, non-voluntary bystanders do not fall under its purview.
Procedural Precedents: The case reinforces the standards for summary judgment motions, emphasizing the necessity for the moving party to eliminate all material facts and the judiciary's role in resolving issues of duty and causation.
Safety Protocols in Shared Spaces: Institutions may need to reassess and enhance safety measures in areas where their activities intersect with public or third-party services to mitigate potential liabilities.

Overall, the decision serves as a precedent for expanding the scope of liability in negligence claims, particularly in environments where operational activities overlap with public access.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To aid in the understanding of the legal nuances in this judgment, the following concepts are clarified:

Assumption of Risk: A legal doctrine where a plaintiff may be barred from recovering damages if they knowingly exposed themselves to a dangerous activity. It requires that the individual was fully aware of the risks involved and voluntarily chose to proceed.
Duty of Care: A legal obligation requiring individuals or entities to adhere to a standard of reasonable care to prevent harm to others. In this context, the school district had a duty to ensure the safety of individuals on its premises.
Summary Judgment: A procedural device used in civil cases to promptly dispose of a case without a trial when there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Proximate Cause: A key element in negligence, referring to the primary cause of an injury. It must be demonstrated that the defendant's actions were closely related to the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
Bystander Injury: Harm suffered by a person who is not directly participating in an activity but is present in the vicinity where the injury occurs.

Conclusion

The decision in Hankey v. Ogdensburg City School District underscores the evolving landscape of negligence law, particularly concerning the obligations of institutions towards third parties on their premises. By rejecting the invocation of the primary assumption of risk, the court reaffirmed the necessity for duty of care to extend beyond direct participants in an activity. This judgment highlights the importance of reasonable supervision and proactive safety measures to prevent foreseeable injuries, thereby shaping the responsibilities of similar entities in the future. Legal practitioners and institutional policymakers must take heed of this precedent to navigate the complexities of duty of care and liability effectively.