You are here: / / Fall from Subway Platform Not the Result of Negligent Crowd Control
,

Fall from Subway Platform Not the Result of Negligent Crowd Control

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and dismissed a lawsuit stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s fall from a subway platform to the tracks below. The court explained the negligence criteria with respect to the crowd on a subway platform:

“A subway company is not negligent merely because it permits crowds to gather on its platform. Before proof of negligence in this regard may be said to exist, it must be shown that the crowd was so large and unmanaged that a user of the platform was restricted in his free movements or was unable to find a safe standing place, and that as a result of either of those conditions an injury was sustained” … .Here, there is no evidence that the crowd on the subway platform was so large and unmanaged that it restricted the decedent’s freedom of movement to the extent necessary to impose liability on the Transit Authority. The evidence in the record was insufficient to make out a prima facie case of negligence against the Transit Authority and, in effect, was insufficient to establish that any negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries… . Garcia v New York Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 00961, 2nd Dept 2-13-14

 

You might also like
“Law Office Failure” Excuse for Failure to Enter a Default Judgment Within One Year Not Sufficient
Plaintiffs Could Not Demonstrate the Alleged Malpractice Was Proximate Cause of Damages—Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Defendants—Elements of Attorney Malpractice Action Explained
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-LAW APARTMENT, COURT’S LIMITED REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PROPERLY OPTED TO SUE EMPLOYER FOR WORKPLACE INJURY, EMPLOYER DID NOT CARRY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE.
WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON A LATE LUMP SUM PAYMENT, HUSBAND NOT ENTITLED TO RECOUP OVERPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE (SECOND DEPT).
PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS ALLEGING NEW INJURIES WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR FOUR YEARS; THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED WITH NO NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION WAS MERITORIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
THE “CONSENT TO SEARCH” PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE NATURE OF DEFENDANT’S OFFENSE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Family Court Should Have Granted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal... Motion to Vacate Pursuant to CPLR 5015 Should Have Been Granted On “Subject...