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
In Spite of Settlement of Underlying Action, the Legal Malpractice Case Alleging Failure to Adequately Investigate Can Go Forward
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED INFLATION OF THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS PURCHASED BY PLAINTIFF; AND THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL WARRANTIES WHICH DID NOT DUPLICATE THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Balancing the Need for a Public Trial and First Amendment Rights (Freedom of the Press) With the Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial Discussed in Some Detail—Here the Court’s Sealing of Some Records and Closures of the Courtroom Reflected a Proper Discretionary Balance
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT DENIAL OF MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY, A HEARSAY LETTER FROM THE NYS OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT REGISTER, FINDING CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER TO BE UNFOUNDED, WAS INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
Confusing Jury Instruction Re: the Justification Defense Required Reversal of Murder Conviction in the Interest of Justice/Defendant’s Attorney Should Have Been Allowed to Testify at the Suppression Hearing—There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Attorney Called and Told the Police He Represented the Defendant and Defendant Should Not Be Questioned
Witness’s Hearsay Statement Should Have Been Admitted as a Statement Against Penal Interest/No Need for Declarant to Be Aware of Specific Violation of Law
MOTION FOR RESENTENCING PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE ELIGIBILITY DATE (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, BASED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

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...