New York property owners are responsible for keeping their premises reasonably safe for people who are invited onto the property. When a guest is hurt while using a feature like a dock or pool, the court looks at whether the owner was negligent in maintaining the property or failed to give warnings. In Sess v. McGorry, the court considered whether homeowners were liable after a guest was hurt diving from their dock into shallow water. The decision looked at the property conditions, the injured guest’s actions, and whether the legal defenses of assumption of risk or sole responsibility applied.
Background Facts
On July 30, 2015, at about 1:30 a.m., Tristan Sess was injured when he dove headfirst into Moriches Bay from the dock of the McGorry family’s summer home in Westhampton Beach, New York. Sess was 19 years old and serving in the Navy. He had visited the McGorry home at least once before to socialize and swim after training with other young men interested in joining Navy special forces.
On the night of the injury, Sess and a group of friends had grilled food, spent time in the hot tub, and repeatedly jumped and dove off the dock into the bay. Sess had consumed a few beers earlier in the day. His girlfriend joined the group that evening. Sess warned her about the shallow water. About ten minutes later, he performed a shallow dive and struck his head on the bay floor.
There were no warning signs posted on the dock. One light was located near the shore end of the dock, but no lights were present at the end over the water. Sess later said he could not tell how deep the water was and would not have dived if he had known it was shallow.
The McGorry parents were not home during the gathering. Their son had invited friends to use the house. Sess brought a lawsuit claiming the homeowners were responsible for his injuries due to unsafe conditions, lack of warnings, and code violations.
Issue
Whether the homeowners could be held legally responsible for Sess’s injuries, or whether Sess’s own conduct barred recovery under the legal doctrines of assumption of risk or sole cause.
Holding
The court denied the homeowners’ motion for summary judgment. It found that they did not meet their burden to show they were not responsible for the injury. The case was allowed to proceed to trial.
Rationale
The homeowners asked the court to dismiss the case by claiming Sess was the only one responsible for his injury. They also argued that he assumed the risk by diving into shallow water, which is a known danger.
The court rejected both arguments. First, on the assumption of risk defense, the court noted that this legal rule only applies to activities like sports or organized recreation where there is a public benefit. It is meant to prevent lawsuits when someone gets hurt during activities like football or skiing. In this case, the court found that casual social diving off a dock at night was not the kind of activity covered by the rule. The dive was not part of an organized event or supervised by the homeowners.
Second, the court explained that even when someone voluntarily takes part in an activity, the property owner must still maintain the premises safely and provide warnings about hidden dangers. The homeowners claimed that Sess should have known about the danger because he had visited before and was experienced in water sports. They pointed to his past sailing and diving experience and the fact that he had earlier warned his girlfriend about the shallow water.
However, the court emphasized that the homeowners had not proven that the dock was safe or that they had warned about tide conditions. The court also noted that Sess said he could not see the bottom due to a lack of lighting. There were no lights at the end of the dock where the dive occurred. The homeowners did not submit evidence about tides, lighting, or dock conditions. They also did not respond to claims about building code violations or the failure to get a permit for the dock.
Because the homeowners failed to submit evidence showing the property was safe or that Sess’s actions were the only cause of the injury, they did not meet their burden for dismissal. The court stated that it is the role of the jury to weigh the facts and decide how much each party was at fault.
Conclusion
This case shows that even when someone makes a poor decision, such as diving into shallow water, property owners may still be held responsible if the premises were unsafe or if proper warnings were not given. The court refused to apply legal defenses that would have automatically blocked Sess from bringing his claim. Instead, the court emphasized that premises liability cases often depend on facts about the property conditions, visibility, and warnings.
If you or a loved one has suffered serious injuries in a swimming pool accident, contact an experienced New York personal injury lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates to discuss your rights and potential claims, and to ensure you receive the justice and compensation you deserve.