You are here: / / “Wheel Stop” in Parking Lot Does Not Present an Unreasonable Risk of Har...

“Wheel Stop” in Parking Lot Does Not Present an Unreasonable Risk of Harm

In this slip and fall case, the Second Department determined that a “wheel stop” or concrete divider in a parking lot is an open and obvious condition that does not present an unreasonable risk of harm:

While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner for its patrons …, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is not inherently dangerous … . Generally “[a] wheel stop or concrete parking lot divider which is clearly visible presents no unreasonable risk of harm” … . Bellini v Gypsy Magic Enters Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 08581, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF NEED NOT BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BRING A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDTION.
HIGHWAY LAW ALLOWING AN UNUSED PUBLIC EASEMENT TO BE DECLARED ABANDONED DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE MUNICIPALITY OWNS A FEE INTEREST IN THE ROADBED.
THE GOVERNOR’S COVID-19-RELATED REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF DESIGNATING-PETITION SIGNATURES UNDER THE ELECTION LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF DESIGNATING-PETITION SIGNATURES UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY HAVE STOPPED AT A STOP SIGN, HE NEVERTHELESS FAILED TO YIELD; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROPERLY DENIED BUT DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Should Have Been Granted Extension to Serve Summons and Complaint Three Days After 120-Day Period Expired
FATHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED UPON LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, REMITTED FOR A CONTINUED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED, THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID CONTRACT PRECLUDED AN ACTION IN QUANTUM MERUIT OR QUASI CONTRACT (SECOND 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

Labor Law 241(6) Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Power Washing Was Integral... Rear-End Collision: No Rational Process By Which Jury Could Have Found Plaintiff...