Limits on Primary Assumption of Risk: Municipal Liability for Negligent Maintenance of Recreational Premises

Introduction

Maharaj v. City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02143, decided April 15, 2025 by the New York Court of Appeals, involves Parnand Maharaj’s personal injury lawsuit against the City of New York and its Parks and Recreation Department. Maharaj was injured playing cricket on an improvised field—two adjacent tennis courts without nets—when he stepped into a long, deep fissure in the cracked asphalt and fractured his tibia. The key issue on appeal was whether the “primary assumption of risk” doctrine bars Maharaj’s negligence claim, given that he knowingly played on an uneven surface. The majority affirmed dismissal on summary judgment, holding the hazard was an “inherent risk” of outdoor recreation. In a vigorous dissent, Judge Rivera argued that the City’s negligent failure to maintain its park facilities created an avoidable danger unrelated to cricket itself, and that primary assumption of risk cannot shield landowners from ordinary maintenance negligence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals, in a memorandum opinion, affirmed the Appellate Division’s grant of summary judgment for the City. It held:

• The cracked, uneven surface of the tennis courts presented risks “inherent in the game of cricket” (Turcotte v. Fell, 68 NY2d 432 [1986]).
• There was no evidence that the fissure “unreasonably enhanced” those inherent risks (Bukowski v. Clarkson Univ., 19 NY3d 353 [2012]).
• Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, Maharaj assumed the ordinary hazards of playing on an irregular outdoor surface and thus cannot recover.

Judge Rivera dissented, emphasizing that a seven-foot-long, three-to-four-inch-deep fissure arising from years of neglect is not an inherent risk of cricket but a dangerous condition attributable to the City’s negligent maintenance. He would reverse and allow Maharaj’s negligence claim to proceed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Turcotte v. Fell (68 NY2d 432 [1986]): Established that participants assume “commonly appreciated risks” inherent in a sport.
• Bukowski v. Clarkson University (19 NY3d 353 [2012]): Held that a defect must “unreasonably enhance” an inherent risk to overcome primary assumption of risk.
• Morgan v. State of New York (90 NY2d 471 [1997]): Confirmed that primary assumption of risk does not bar claims of ordinary premises-maintenance negligence.
• Maddox v. City of New York (66 NY2d 270 [1985]): Allowed assumption of risk for mud on a baseball field as inherent, but distinguished from negligent conditions beyond ordinary wear.
• Siegel v. City of New York (90 NY2d 479 [1997]): Declined to apply assumption of risk to a torn indoor divider net, recognizing a landowner’s duty to repair.
• Sykes v. County of Erie (94 NY2d 912 [2000]): Applied assumption of risk to an open-and-obvious recessed drain but noted lack of evidence of negligent maintenance.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s primary assumption of risk doctrine absolves owners of sports facilities from liability for injuries arising from ordinary, open-and-obvious hazards inherent in recreational activities. Yet, it has been “closely circumscribed” so as not to displace the general duty of care owed by landowners to maintain safe premises (Trupia v. Lake George Cent. Sch. Dist., 14 NY3d 392 [2010]). Under CPLR 1411’s comparative-fault regime, a plaintiff’s awareness of risk reduces but does not eliminate liability for negligent maintenance.

In Maharaj, the majority deemed the cracked court surface an “inherent” hazard. The dissent countered that:

• A seven-foot fissure, with nested holes, is far beyond ordinary irregularities of an outdoor surface.
• The fissure resulted from years of freeze-thaw cycles and neglect, not normal play.
• Such a defect disrupts the game and poses a distinct danger unrelated to the sport’s inherent risks.

Because negligent maintenance of premises remains actionable—even if defects are visible—the dissent argued that summary judgment was inappropriate and a jury should decide if the City breached its duty of care.

Impact

This decision has immediate and far-reaching implications:

• Municipal Maintenance: Municipalities may interpret the majority’s ruling as a license to defer repairs on public recreational facilities, knowing open-and-obvious hazards may be deemed “inherent risks.”
• Recreational Liability: Sponsors of amateur sports on public land may invoke primary assumption of risk more broadly, potentially insulating themselves from negligence claims.
• Judicial Doctrine: The ruling highlights ongoing tension between traditional premises-liability duties and the policy-driven primary assumption of risk carve-out, inviting future reexamination of CPLR 1411’s role.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Assumption of Risk: A defense that a participant knowingly undertook risks inherent in an activity, waiving claims for ordinary hazards.
• Primary vs. Secondary Assumption: Primary assumption bars liability altogether for inherent risks; secondary assumption applies when a plaintiff’s misconduct increases risk, reducing recovery under comparative negligence.
• Comparative Fault (CPLR 1411): Replaces all-or-nothing defenses with proportionate liability—each party’s fault reduces the damage award accordingly.
• Premises Liability Duty: Landowners must exercise reasonable care to keep their property free of dangerous conditions, repairing defects that create undue hazards.

Conclusion

Maharaj v. City of New York crystallizes the divide over how far primary assumption of risk should shield landowners, especially public bodies, from negligence claims. The majority’s expansive view risks excusing long-neglected hazards as “inherent” features of recreation, while the dissent reaffirms that ordinary maintenance failures remain within the scope of classic premises-liability law. Going forward, this case will guide litigants and public agencies on the fine line between risks participants may assume and the continuing duty of care owed by property owners to maintain safe playing fields.