You are on page 1of 3

Chad

Carlson

u0814848

Case Breakdown Task

Instructions: Read your case thoroughly. Highlight, using the highlighter tool in Adobe, key aspects of the case
and make sure you truly understand what has happened during the trial. In order to complete this task, you
will enter you answers into this word document and upload it to Canvas, with your case as well, so that we can
also look at your case. Be sure to ask questions if you have any! Have fun!
****Be Sure You Are Only Reviewing A Civil Case Within Our Field****
Who is the Plaintiff: Grayford J. Mesick
Who is the Defendant: State of New York
What is the case citation: Mesick v. State of New York 118 A.D.2d 214; 504 N.Y.S.2d 279 (N.Y.App.1986)
Identify and explain the type of case this is (Negligence/Intentional Tort/Workplace Risk/Etc). Be sure to list
and describe all elements involved. HINT: if this is a negligence case, then you will have 4 elements of risk.
This is a negligence case against the state of New York.
Duty: Prevent people from participating in the dangerous and highly foreseeable activity of swinging on
the rope over the rocks and into the water. Respond to risks as well as reported injuries as soon as you
are aware and take active steps towards preventing that risk in the future.
Breach: The state was aware that the area was often used for the purpose of swimming and swinging
on the rope and did nothing to prevent it. They were also aware that previous injuries had occurred as
a result of the swing and did not take action necessary to prevent the future foreseeable injuries from
taking place.
Causation: Mesick was using the rope to swing over the rocks and into the water as he had in past
occurrences. He attempted to get a running start to grab the rope but either tripped or slipped on his
way to the rope and his momentum carried him off the edge and head first into the rocks.
Injury: Mesick suffered a severe laceration to his head and a spinal cord injury, which rendered him a
permanent quadriplegic.

Explain the circumstances of the injury/accident/situation (In your own words and be detailed):
Honeysuckle Rock was a state owned property that was open to the public for the sole use of fishing.
There were signs posted around the area that explicitly permitted only fishing in the water. Despite
this, the area was commonly used for swimming. The state knew the area was used for swimming.
They also knew that someone had tied a rope to a tree branch and that people would use the rope to
swing over the sharp rocks below and fall into the water. Because of the known likelihood of injury and
foreseeability of swimmers presence in the area, a duty of care arose on the part of the State. All they
did to prevent this use of the area was occasionally cut the rope off the tree. In order to fully prevent
further injury, the state easily could have just cut down the tree that was used to hang the rope.


Instead, they did nothing. On May 30, 1981, 17-year-old Grayford Mesick went to Honeysuckle Rock
with his friends to use the rope swing and swim in the water as he had on previous days before. After
successfully swinging over the rocks and into the water, he decided to get a running start for his
second swing. While approaching the rope, he tripped and missed the rope, which caused him to land
head first into the rocks. He was paralyzed from the accident and he and his mother sued the state of
New York for negligence, claiming they did not meet the duty of care owed to Mesick to warn and
prevent the risk of falling on the rocks.
List and describe the defenses of negligence used by the Defendant:
(Hint: There are generally more than one)
Comparative Negligence: The state argued that Mesick was comparatively negligent in his act of
swinging on the rope, over the rocks, and into the water when signs explicitly expressed that the area
was to be used for fishing only. They claimed that he was equally negligent for the accident because he
knew that the area was to be used for fishing only and that the rope hung above sharp rocks and was
used illegally by thrill seekers. Knowing this, he still decided to try and get a running start and grab the
rope to swing over the rocks and into the water. The state contested that the negligent actions of
Mesick contributed equally to the state’s negligence in the cause of the accident occurring.
Assumption of Risk: The state argued that the risk associated with swinging over the rocks to jump into
the water was obvious and that there was an implied assumption of risk. Because the obvious risk was
implied, expressed assumption of risk is not necessary. No signs were posted warning of the risk
because the area was only for fishing and there would be no risk in using the area with the intention of
fishing. The state claimed that because Mesick assumed the risk of injury when he decided to use the
area to rope swing over the rocks and into the water, they do not owe him a duty of care.


What was the outcome of the case (Use the legal terms and then explain – you might need to use Blacks Law
Dictionary)? Who won the case?
The trial court apportioned culpable conduct 75% against the appellant state and 25% against claimant.
A separate trial for damages concluded that the claimant’s damages equaled $6.05 million and his
mother’s to be $150,000. The state appealed the judgment that was entered in the awards amount of
$4,537,500 for claimant and $112,500 for his mother, challenging both the finding of liability and the
calculation of damages. The court modified the trial court’s judgment and affirmed an apportionment
of 50% each for appellant and respondent claimant on the basis of negligence and assumption of risk
by respondent. The court also agreed with the State’s position that the damages awarded of $6.05
million was excessive, and lowered damages awarded to be $3.95 million. The court stated that the
original decision did not accurately incorporate claimant’s implied assumption of risk into the
apportionment of culpable conduct. The plaintiff won the case in being awarded $3.95 million.
However, because the state was successful in proving Mesick’s implied assumption of risk, they were
only held 50% liable for the accident occurring and did not have to pay Mesick nearly as much as they
otherwise would have.





Now, using what you have learned in class and read in the book, do you think this case was fair? Be sure to
support your answer. Were the appropriate defenses used? A short answer of Yes or No will not do. We want
to see that you understand concepts and principles of the law.
Yes, I do believe the case was fair. Mesick not only was aware that the property was for fishing only but
also was old enough to understand the risk involved in rope swinging over sharp rocks. On top of that,
he also decided to make the action even more dangerous by gathering a running start so he could
launch further over the rocks. Mesick without a doubt assumed the risks involved and was probably
equally liable for the accident occurring when you take all of his actions into account. The state was
rightfully held liable for the other 50% because they absolutely owed a duty of care and they did not
fulfill this duty by simply posting signs and occasionally cutting down the rope. The reason the state
owed a duty of care is because they were aware that this property was often used for the purpose of
rope swinging into the water. They also were aware that a past injury had already occurred as a result
from the rope swing, which makes it very foreseeable that another injury is likely to occur. In the end, I
believe the court made the right call in holding each party 50% liable, as actions by both Mesick and
the state equally caused the injury to occur.

You might also like