## Facts

- Ronald J. Turcotte, an experienced professional jockey, rode in a race at Belmont Park operated by the New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA).
- Jeffrey Fell, another jockey, rode a horse owned by David P. Reynolds; Reynolds was sued on a respondeat superior theory.
- Seconds after the start, Turcotte’s horse clipped the heels of another horse, tripped, and fell, throwing Turcotte and causing paraplegia.
- Turcotte alleged Fell negligently crossed into his lane in violation of racing rules, leading to the heel-clipping and fall.
- Turcotte also alleged NYRA negligently maintained the track near the starting gate by watering and grooming that created unsafe “cupping” in the surface.
- Turcotte testified that horses veering, lane movement at the start, heel-clipping, and track “cupping” were common and were inherent risks of racing known to him.

## Issues

1. Whether, under New York’s comparative negligence regime, a professional jockey’s primary assumption of risk limits a co-participant jockey’s duty to avoid only reckless or intentional conduct.
2. Whether primary assumption of risk similarly limits a racetrack operator’s premises-liability duty regarding open and obvious track conditions commonly associated with horse racing.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Fell and Reynolds, dismissing the claims against them.
- The court held that, for professional co-participants, the duty is limited to refraining from reckless or intentional misconduct outside the ordinary range of the sport.
- The court reversed the order denying summary judgment to NYRA and dismissed the claims against NYRA.
- The court concluded the alleged risks from track “cupping” were known, apparent, and foreseeable to an experienced jockey and did not create a triable issue of breach of duty.

## Legal Principles

- Primary assumption of risk in professional sports functions as a limitation on duty, not merely as a fault-apportionment doctrine.
- A professional participant is deemed to consent to injury-causing events that are known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of participation in the sport.
- A co-participant in a professional sporting event generally owes no duty of ordinary reasonable care for inherent risks; liability requires reckless or intentional conduct outside the sport’s ordinary scope.
- A facility owner/operator’s duty to a professional participant is similarly limited for inherent, open, and obvious conditions commonly incident to the sport; liability may exist for concealed hazards or risks unreasonably increased beyond those inherent in the activity.

## Conclusion

The court held that a professional jockey’s claims were barred by primary assumption of risk because heel-clipping, lateral movement at the start, and common track-surface irregularities were inherent and obvious risks of horse racing; absent evidence of reckless or intentional misconduct by a co-participant or a concealed or extraordinary hazard created by the track operator, no duty of ordinary care supported liability.


Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432 (N.Y. 1986)