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
DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED AND CLEANED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENDANT IN THIS INQUEST ON DAMAGES; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEFAULTED ON LIABILITY IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DEFENDANT APPEARED FOR THE INQUEST (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT TESTIMONY OF THE PEOPLE’S DNA EXPERT, THE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION (SECOND DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT DURING DISCOVERY, AND SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
AMBIGUOUS TERMS IN CONTRACT NOT CLARIFIED BY PAROL EVIDENCE, TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
[Harmless] Error to Deny Defense a Hearing to Determine Admissibility of Testimony of Private Investigator About What Could Be Seen from a Certain Vantage Point (Calling Into Question Testimony Identifying the Defendant)
ANONYMOUS TIP ALLEGING SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR BY MEN WEARING HOODIES GOING IN AND OUT OF A U-HAUL TRUCK DID NOT JUSTIFY PULLING OVER A U-HAUL TRUCK DRIVEN BY A MAN WEARING A HOODIE, WEAPON FOUND IN THE TRUCK SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Warn Defendant His Guilty Plea Could Lead to Deportation, Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Decision in Padilla v Kentucky, Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

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