You are here: / / Security Guard and College Had No Duty to Protect Taxi Driver from Attack...
, ,

Security Guard and College Had No Duty to Protect Taxi Driver from Attack by Students on Campus—Plaintiff Was Not a Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Security Company and College

The Second Department determined defendants security company (Secuitas), security guard (Jarrett) and college (Manhattanville) did not owe any duty to a taxi driver who was allegedly attacked and injured by students on a college campus.  The complaint alleged a security guard (Jarrett) was nearby and did nothing to intervene in the attack:

A contractual obligation, standing alone, generally will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party … . Before an injured party may recover as a third-party beneficiary for failure to perform a duty imposed by contract, it must clearly appear from the provisions of the contract that the parties thereto intended to confer a direct benefit on the alleged third-party beneficiary to protect him or her from physical injury … .

The plaintiff here was not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Securitas and Manhattanville, as the contract did not contain any express provision that it would protect individuals on the campus from physical injury or attack … . Securitas and Jarrett did not assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to the plaintiff by virtue of its contractual duty to provide an unarmed security guard … . Securitas did not assume a duty pursuant to the contract to prevent assaults, or to protect the plaintiff from physical injury inflicted by intervening third-party assailants … . As such, Securitas and Jarrett established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ramirez v Genovese, 2014 NY Slip Op 03673, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

You might also like
INTEREST MUST BE RECALCULATED AND ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE, PERHAPS IN A HEARING, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
REQUIREMENT THAT COVERAGE CANNOT BE DENIED UNLESS THE GROUND FOR THE DENIAL IS SPECIFIED IN THE DISCLAIMER LETTER APPLIES ONLY TO DEATH AND BODILY INJURY CLAIMS, THE INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A VANDALISM EXCLUSION IN THIS PROPERTY DAMAGE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVERSE POSSESSION ACTION AND THE LACHES DEFENSE, THE ACTION INVOLVED LAND THAT WAS ONCE UNDER WATER CREATED BY THE MOVEMENT OF SAND DURING STORMS DECADES AGO (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Demonstrated It Did Not Have Constructive Notice of Condition Which Caused the Fall—Law of Constructive Notice Explained Re: Recurring Conditions/Latent Defects
PLAINTIFF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE HE WAS LICENSED IN ROCKLAND COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSES OF ACTION TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN AND BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS NOT MET, PROOF OF MAILING INSUFFICIENT.
Whether Lost Evidence Was Relevant to Plaintiff’s Case Presented a Jury Question—Only If the Jury Determines the Evidence Was Relevant Can the Jury Consider the Adverse Inference Charge for Spoliation of Evidence
DEFENDANT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA ON GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES.

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

Complaint Stated Causes of Action for Breach of Contract and Fraud—Plaintiff... Supreme Court Should Have Proceeded to Second Step of Defendant’s “Batson”...