## Facts

- Richard Lee Goodlett and Christopher Kalishek were pilots participating in a Formula V air race at Gabreski Airport in Westhampton Beach, New York.
- Formula V racing involved single-seat, home-built aircraft flown at low altitudes (about 30–150 feet) and high speeds (about 100–200 mph) on a marked pylon course.
- The Formula V Air Racing Association (led by Goodlett as president) warned participants that air racing is dangerous and required pilots to sign a liability release expressly warning of serious injury or death, including death by collision.
- Goodlett was highly experienced, with over 3,500 flight hours, including substantial Formula V time, and participation in more than 250 races.
- Approximately fourteen seconds after crossing the finish line, Kalishek’s aircraft collided with Goodlett’s aircraft, killing Goodlett and seriously injuring Kalishek.
- Sandra M. Goodlett, as widow and estate representative, brought a diversity wrongful-death action alleging Kalishek’s negligence.
- The district court allowed the case to proceed on comparative fault, the jury apportioned fault 40% to Kalishek and 60% to Goodlett, and judgment was entered for plaintiff for 40% of damages.
- Kalishek appealed, arguing New York primary assumption of risk barred the action; plaintiff cross-appealed on other issues.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s primary assumption of risk doctrine bars a negligence wrongful-death claim by an experienced air-race participant for a midair collision occurring immediately after the finish line was crossed.
2. Whether the risk of collision in the immediate post-finish phase is an inherent risk of the sport such that the defendant owes no duty, making comparative negligence inapplicable.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held New York’s primary assumption of risk doctrine barred the wrongful-death claim in full.
- The court concluded the risk of midair collision was inherent in Formula V air racing and extended to the immediate post-finish period before landing and dispersal were completed.
- Because the claim was barred at the duty stage, the court did not reach the plaintiff’s cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity is deemed to consent to commonly appreciated risks inherent in and arising from the nature of the sport.
- When primary assumption of risk applies, the defendant owes no duty to protect the participant from those inherent risks; the claim is barred rather than reduced by comparative fault.
- The temporal scope of inherent sporting risks may include conduct reasonably incident to completing the activity, not only the formal competitive moment (e.g., immediate post-finish maneuvering at race speeds and spacing).
- Absent allegations supporting reckless or intentional misconduct outside ordinary sport-related risks, negligence claims based on inherent risks are precluded.

## Conclusion

The court held that an experienced Formula V pilot who knowingly accepted the sport’s expressly stated collision risks assumed the inherent danger of a midair collision occurring in the immediate aftermath of the race, eliminating any duty by another pilot and barring the wrongful-death negligence action.


Goodlett v. Kalishek, 223 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2000)