Defendant Demonstrated It Did Not Have Constructive Notice of Condition Which Caused the Fall—Law of Constructive Notice Explained Re: Recurring Conditions/Latent Defects
The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case because it demonstrated it did not have constructive notice of the condition which caused the fall. Plaintiff was walking on a pallet in the stock room while unloading things. After walking on the pallet three times, one of the boards apparently broke causing injury. There was testimony that there was no sign the board was going to break prior to the accident. The court explained the relevant law, including the law concerning recurring conditions and latent defects:
A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected … .
When a landowner has actual knowledge of the tendency of a particular dangerous condition to reoccur, he or she can be charged with constructive notice of each specific reoccurrence of that condition … . A general awareness of a recurring problem is insufficient, without more, to establish constructive notice of the particular condition causing the fall … . When a defect is latent and would not be discoverable upon a reasonable inspection, constructive notice may not be imputed … .
The Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through the submission of, inter alia, a transcript of the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that it did not create the condition or have actual or constructive notice thereof. Schubert-Fanning v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 04474, 2nd Dept 6-18-14