You are here: / / Question of Fact About Resort Owner’s Duty to Maintain Walkways in Winter D...

Question of Fact About Resort Owner’s Duty to Maintain Walkways in Winter Despite Claim the Resort Was Closed in the Winter Months

The Third Department determined the claim that a resort was closed in the winter did not relieve the property owner from the duty to maintain the walkways during the winter months.  Plaintiff slipped and fell on a snow-covered walkway.  Condominiums at the resort were accessible year-round:

…[I]t is well settled that “a landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining his [or her] own property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances” … .  The nature and scope of a landowner’s duty and the persons to whom such duty is owed are determined by consideration of, among other things, “the likelihood of injury to another from a dangerous condition on the property, . . . the burden of avoiding the risk [as well as] the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff’s presence on the property” … .  “Although a jury determines whether and to what extent a particular duty was breached, it is for the court first to determine whether any duty exists, taking into consideration the reasonable expectations of the parties and society generally” … .

In order to satisfy its burden on summary judgment, defendant was required to present evidence conclusively establishing that its duty to use reasonable care did not extend to plaintiff.  We reject defendant’s argument that it was not required to maintain the walkway on which plaintiff fell because the resort was closed to the public during the winter months.  It is undisputed that there was no gate or other apparatus blocking the public’s access to the resort and, apart from a sign posted on the main hotel door, there was no notice that either the resort property resort, generally, or the subject walkway, in particular, was closed to the public at the time of plaintiff’s accident. Significantly, the condominiums located on the resort property were accessible year-round, with no limitation on visitors.  It is also uncontroverted that defendant did not inspect the walkway in question.  In our view, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s use of the path was not reasonably foreseeable… . Drake v Sagbolt LLC, 516967, 3rd Dept 12-12-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT FOR THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONER, COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FROM HER EMPLOYMENT FOR OTHER REASONS, THE FACT THAT SHE TESTIFIED IN FAMILY COURT ABOUT THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF A JUVENILE WHICH WAS NOT AS SEVERE AS THE PLACEMENT ADVOCATED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF LOYALTY (THIRD DEPT).
Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Raised Question of Fact About Whether Anesthesiologist, Who Was Alone With the Unconscious Decedent at the Time of Death, Was Negligent
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED.
REFERENCES TO DEVIATE BEHAVIOR AND USE OF FORCE IN PETITIONER-INMATE’S CRIME AND SENTENCE INFORMATION FORM AND HIS COMPAS RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SEXUAL OFFENSES COMMITTED; THE PETITION SEEKING CORRECTION OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS USING HIS OWN LADDER WHEN IT FELL DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF MEASURES TAKEN TO PREVENT THE LADDER FROM FALLING, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE, PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT TOWN PREMATURE.
Village’s Opting to Remove Petitioner’s Land from the Land Available for Purchase by New York City to Maintain the City’s Drinking-Water Watershed Was Not a Regulatory Taking

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

Snow Removal Contractor May Be Liable to Plaintiff in Slip and Fall Action/Question... Cy Pres Doctrine Properly Applied to Distribute Gifts to the Hospital Which...