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
ALTHOUGH THIS NON-TORT ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, IT DID TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF STRUCK ON HER HEAD BY A FALLING OBJECT IN AN ELEVATOR WHEN DEFENDANT WAS WORKING ON AN ADJACENT SHAFT, NO NEED TO PLEAD RES IPSA LOQUITUR TO ASSERT IT, RECORD INSUFFICIENT TO CONSIDER APPLICABILITY OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR (FIRST DEPT).
RES IPSA LOQUITUR NEEDN’T BE ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM OR THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THEORY OF LIABILITY, IT IS AN EVIDENTIARY RULE; NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION CAN BE INFERRED UNDER THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.
ASSAULT SECOND HAS A PERPETRATOR-VICTIM-AGE-DIFFERENCE” ELEMENT; THE PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S AGE WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION OVER THE NEGLECT PROCEEDING UPON LEARNING FATHER HAD COMMENCED A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN TEXAS; THERE WAS NO ASSURANCE FROM THE TEXAS COURT RE: SAFEGUARDING THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).
Defendants Unable to Demonstrate that Plaintiff’s Alleged Breach of a Related Contract Relieved Defendants of the Obligation to Pay a Promissory Note—No Showing the Promissory Note and Oral Agreement Were “Intertwined”
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY APPLIED THE “PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL CRITERIA” AND ASSESSED DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT PARENT CORPORATION; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (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...