This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

While attending a summer program administered by D on their premises, P rode and ultimately fell from a banister, injuring himself seriously. P seeks to recover upon a theory of negligent supervision. P alleges that at the time of the accident P, then not yet 12 years of age, had been left wholly unsupervised. D moved to dismiss as P assumed the risk of sliding down the banister. P had fallen once before when he attempted the stunt. The court granted the motion. P appealed. The appeals court held that assumption of risk doctrine is not generally applicable in negligence actions to nullify a defendant's duty, but is appropriately interposed only to shield a defendant from exposure to liability arising from risks inherent in athletic and recreational activities. The appeals court reversed and then certified the issue.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.