Shenendehowa Case Study

McGrath v. Shenendehowa Central School District (2010) The case of McGrath v. Shenendehowa Central School District began on May 3rd, 2005 when Theresa McGrath, a senior at Bethlehem High School, suffered a horrific knee injury playing a regular season, varsity lacrosse game at their opponent’s field in the Town of Clifton Park. From Theresa’s perspective, the injury occurred when she tried to perform a “roll dodge” move to avoid a defender. When she planted her left leg to perform the move, she claims that it got stuck in a soft, sand-like material used to patch the field and was the reason why her injury transpired. McGrath filed a complaint saying that Shenendehowa did not maintain a safe field and the use of the soft material created
an unreasonably dangerous playing field. However, during pregame warm-ups, McGrath said, “this is a really bad field” and “someone’s going to get hurt.” Shenendehowa fired back saying that the claim should be dropped on the basis of the doctrine of assumption of risk. The basis of the doctrine of assumption of risk as previously explained by Lincoln v.
Canastota Central School District 53 AD3d 851, 851-851 (2008) is as follows, “A person who voluntarily participates in a sport or recreational activity assumes the risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation, including those risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it". However, “Participants in such activities will not, however, be deemed to have assumed concealed or unreasonably increased risks” (see Morgan v. State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 486 (1997). In this case, the plaintiff, McGrath, states that the defendant, Shenendehowa Central School District, did not maintain a safe playing field and showed negligence when it came to field maintenance. The plaintiff also claimed that before the injury occurred she observed the spots on the field that were repaired and she couldn’t tell them different from regular rough patches of dirt on the field that were covered by grass. So basically she is claiming that she was unaware of the hazardous spots filled with soft, sand-like material and was unaware of the actual risk she was taking because she was only able to observe the surface of the field. She states that when she planted her foot, it “sunk” into the ground and as she continued to perform the move her foot remained stuck in the so-called sinkhole and that is why
the injury occurred. The defendant admitted that several months before the accident, someone drove on the field and did “donuts”, leaving divots and ruts in the field.
Shortly after the damage was done to the field, the ground crew came and repaired the spots and reseeded the areas. One month before the accident, the ground crew came back and did the repair process again. The day after the injury occurred there was a video taken of the field and it showed that the field appeared even at first, but after taking a closer look, there were areas on the field that were lower than others and they had been filled with a substance that could easily be shifted. This evidence heavily supports the argument of the
plaintiff. The issue in this case relates back to the doctrine of assumption of risk because it raises a question of whether or not the field appeared to be as dangerous as it actually was in the eyes of the plaintiff. Cases involving the doctrine of the assumption of risk need to be decided by a jury.
The school requested that McGrath’s claim should be thrown out because of assumption of risk but McGrath cross-moved for summary judgment therefore dismissing the school’s request to have her claim thrown out. However the New York Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs cross motion on the basis that the field was “open and obvious” and that she assumed the risk of playing on a potentially dangerous field. McGrath appealed and the case went to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court which then went through the same issues and holding and determined that the appellant, McGrath, was aware of the hazardous spots on the field of the respondent, Shenendehowa Central School District, and she assumed the risk of injury associated with playing the game. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department denied McGrath’s cross motion on August 12, 2010.

Work Cited
“McGrath v. SHENENDEHOWA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 76 AD 3d 755 – NY: Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 2010.” Google Scholar, Web. 3 March 2014.