All sports are riddled with risk of injury, and those who engage in such activities are viewed by the law as having acquiesced to the possibility of harm, particularly those injuries which are "known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable."
When it comes to skiiing or snowboarding, for example, that standard is no different. Generally, the risk of being injured by another is looked upon as "inherent" to the sport. In other words, if you're hurt, you're likely out of luck if you're looking to recover damages by way of a lawsuit. Unless, you can show that the person who caused the injury did so "intentionally" or "recklessly."
In DeMasi v. Rogers , the Appellate Division, Second Department, examined the outcome of DeMasi's personal-injury lawsuit against a snowboarder who had collided with him while skiing in Massachusetts. The Dutchess County Supreme Court had granted the snowboarder's request to dismiss the case, finding that DeMasi had assumed the risk of skiing.
The AD2 concluded that a hearing or trial was warranted to resolve unresolved "questions of fact." As the court observed:
The distance that the plaintiff was thrown as a result of the impact, and the nature and extent of the injuries incurred, raise at least a question of fact as to whether the defendant's speed in the vicinity and overall conduct was reckless ... On this basis, the defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been denied.
Apparently, this particular "board bro" was "horndoggin'" or "hucking too much gander."
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: DeMasi v. Rogers