BRIAN GERALD MANKOSKI V SHANE MIERAS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BRIAN GERALD MANKOSKI,
UNPUBLISHED
March 12, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 204659
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 95-004412 NO
SHANE MIERAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and MacKenzie and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Plaintiff and defendant went to a facility to participate in indoor rock climbing. Both parties
were experienced at the sport. Prior to engaging in climbing, plaintiff signed a document in which he
acknowledged the risks inherent in the sport, expressly assumed those risks, and released the facility
from liability. Defendant acted as plaintiff’s belayer. A belayer is a spotter who watches the climber,
controls the tension on the safety rope, and operates a braking device designed to prevent the climber
from falling to the ground. When plaintiff fell from the wall, defendant attempted to operate the braking
device. Because the safety rope had excessive slack, defendant could not prevent plaintiff from falling
to the ground.
Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that defendant was negligent in exercising his duties as a belayer.
Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that he breached
no duty to plaintiff, that plaintiff assumed the risks of injury, that the injury sustained was within the
scope of plaintiff’s consent to the risks inherent in the sport, and that plaintiff released all participants
from liability. The trial court granted defendant’s motion based on Higgins v Pfeiffer, 215 Mich App
423; 546 NW2d 645 (1996).
This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition de novo.
Harrison v Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 605; 572 NW2d 679 (1997).
-1
We affirm. In Higgins, supra, the plaintiff was injured by a baseball thrown by a teammate.
We affirmed the grant of the defendants’ motion for summary disposition, finding that a participant in a
sporting event is assumed to be aware of the inherent risks of injury in the sport, and to have consented
to those risks. The plaintiff’s injury was within the scope of the plaintiff’s consent. Higgins, supra, at
425-427. Here, plaintiff expressly acknowledged and consented to the risks inherent in indoor rock
climbing, including the risk that his belayer would act in a negligent manner. Plaintiff’s injuries were
within the scope of his consent. Higgins, supra, controls the instant case and supports the granting of
defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk may be asserted
as a defense if the plaintiff has expressly contracted to assume the risk. Felgner v Anderson, 375 Mich
23, 55-56; 133 NW2d 136 (1965). Plaintiff expressly assumed the risks of indoor rock climbing,
including that he would incur injury due to the negligence of his belayer.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
