You are here: / / Transit Authority Employee Properly Found Negligent In Not Summoning Help...
, , ,

Transit Authority Employee Properly Found Negligent In Not Summoning Help for Police Officers Injured While Making an Arrest in a Subway Station

The First Department reinstated a verdict in favor of police officers who were injured in the course of making as arrest in a subway station. As the officer chased the suspect, he asked a New York City Transit Authority employee to call for police back up.  The theory of the case was that the employee negligently did not call for back up. The trial judge granted the Transit Authority’s motion for judgment finding the employee was under no duty to call for assistance.  In reversing, the First Department wrote:

Public Authorities Law § 1212(3) imposes liability upon the Transit Authority for the negligence of its employees in the operation of the subway system. Although it is a common carrier, the Transit Authority is held to a duty of ordinary care under the particular circumstances of each case …. In Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth. (68 NY2d 165 [1986]), the Court of Appeals held that the Transit Authority could be held liable for the negligent failure of its employees to summon aid as they watched a gang of thugs fatally assault a passenger. As the Court stated, “Watching someone being beaten from a vantage point offering both safety and the means to summon help without danger is within the narrow range of circumstances which could be found to be actionable” (id. at 170 [citation omitted]). The trial court held that Crosland had no application here because plaintiffs were police officers. This was error.

The broad definition of onlooker liability articulated by the Crosland Court does not lend itself to any exception based upon an injured party’s status as a police officer. To be sure, General Obligations Law § 11-106 gives police officers as well as firefighters, who are injured in the line of duty, a distinct right of action against tortfeasors that cause such injuries. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ recovery is not barred by their status as police officers and the Transit Authority’s liability was established at trial. The Transit Authority also argues that the evidence did not establish that a timely response on Corbin’s part would have prevented plaintiffs’ injuries. We decline to consider this argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal. Were we to consider the argument, we would find it unavailing. Filippo v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 03025, 1st Dept, 4-30-13

 

 

You might also like
Questions of Fact About the Sequence of Two Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment
BANK WHICH ISSUED AN “OFFICIAL CHECK” DRAWN ON A DIFFERENT BANK, AFTER THE CUSTOMER’S FUNDS WERE WIRED TO THAT OTHER BANK (PURSUANT TO AN AGREED ARRANGEMENT), WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE OR UNDER A MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED THEORY FOR THE SUBSEQUENT MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE CHECK (FIRST DEPT).
RETRIAL VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY; DEFENDANT HAD MADE A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DID NOT CONSENT TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).
NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG CRITERIA WHEN RULING ON WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; ASSESSING DEFENDANT’S CHANCES AT TRIAL IS NOT THE PROPER ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).
CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE APPLIED TO AN ENGINEERING FIRM HIRED TO OVERSEE AN HVAC INSTALLATION PROJECT; THE THREE-YEAR NEGLIGENCE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED BY THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE AND THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THE BORROWER DIED AND DEFENDANT INHERITED THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE BORROWER’S MORTGAGE; THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE REQUIRMENTS IN RPAPL 1304 IS A DEFENSE WHICH IS PERSONAL TO THE BORROWER; IT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANT, A “STRANGER TO THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE” (FIRST DEPT).
Application to File Late Notice of Claim (30 Days Late) Should Have Been Granted—Respondents Had Notice of the Incident and Short Delay Did Not Affect Ability to Investigate

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

Verdict for Negligent Design Upheld—1987 Car Did Not Have a Starter Interlock... Pursuant to CPLR 5225, a Parent Bank Can Not Be Garnished Because a Judgment...