## Facts

- Luke Anthony Trupia, then under 12, attended a summer program operated by Lake George Central School District on school premises.
- He rode and fell from a bannister, suffering serious injuries.
- The complaint primarily alleged negligent supervision, asserting Luke was left wholly unsupervised at the time of the accident.
- The school district contended Luke had previously slid down bannisters and that falling was an obvious risk he accepted by engaging in the conduct.
- Defendants sought leave to amend their answer to add the affirmative defense of primary assumption of risk.

## Issues

1. Whether primary assumption of risk applies outside athletic and recreational activities to bar or limit liability for injuries arising from a child’s horseplay at a school program.
2. Whether defendants should be permitted to amend their answer to plead primary assumption of risk in a negligent supervision action under these facts.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division and answered the certified question in the negative.
- The court held defendants could not amend their answer to assert primary assumption of risk on these facts.
- The doctrine did not apply to a child’s bannister-sliding at a school program; the claim was governed by ordinary negligence principles, including the school’s duty of reasonable supervision.
- Any culpable conduct by the child could be considered under comparative fault, not as a duty-negating bar.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 1411 eliminated assumption of risk as an absolute defense; a plaintiff’s culpable conduct, including assumption of risk, generally reduces damages rather than barring recovery.
- Primary assumption of risk survives only in a limited, duty-defining form, chiefly for athletic and recreational activities where participants consent to commonly appreciated inherent risks.
- Extending primary assumption of risk to ordinary childhood misbehavior and everyday risks is inconsistent with comparative fault and would improperly erode schools’ duty to supervise children.
- Schools owe students the degree of care a reasonably prudent parent would exercise in comparable circumstances, including reasonable supervision against foreseeable harms arising from typical child conduct.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals confined primary assumption of risk to its narrow, sports-and-recreation context and refused to allow it to negate a school’s duty of reasonable supervision for injuries caused by a child’s horseplay, leaving any fault by the child to be addressed through comparative fault rather than a complete defense.


Trupia v. Lake George Cent. Sch. Dist., 927 N.E.2d 547 (N.Y. 2010)