You are here: / / Circumstances Under Which Contractor Can Be Held Liable for Slip on Snow...
,

Circumstances Under Which Contractor Can Be Held Liable for Slip on Snow and Ice 

In this slip and fall case, the Second Department explained the circumstances under which a snow-and-ice-removal contractor can be held liable for injuries to third parties:

Generally, “a limited contractual obligation to provide snow removal services does not render the contractor liable in tort for the personal injuries of third parties” … . However, there are three recognized exceptions: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .  Santos v Deanco Servs, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02065, 2012-02786, Index No 5927/09, 2nd Dept 3-27-13

 

 

You might also like
Plaintiff Need Not Submit Any Evidence In Response to a Motion to Dismiss Alleging Failure to State a Cause of Action, Even If Defendant Does
Procedure for Sentencing a Second Felony Offender Not Followed
DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Failed to Demonstrate Lack of Constructive Notice of Condition; Did Not Present Evidence of Last Inspection of Area Where Slip and Fall Occurred
MOTHER ALLEGED SHE MADE PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES IN THIS SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING; FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO REIMBURSE MOTHER WITHOUT PROOF THE PAYMENTS WERE IN FACT MADE BY MOTHER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATING TO THE COURT THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS FRIVOLOUS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH PARTY DEPOSITIONS HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT PREMATURE AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION PAPERS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT BECAUSE NO EXPLANATION OF THE ACCIDENT WAS OFFERED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT’S BUS CROSSED A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE AND STRUCK HIS TAXI CAB (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Assault by Another Student—Question Whether School District Had Notice... Ambiguity in Separation Agreement Construed Against Drafter