You are here: / / Fact that a Condition May Be Open and Obvious Does Not Eliminate Property...

Fact that a Condition May Be Open and Obvious Does Not Eliminate Property Owner’s Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendants in a slip and fall case. Plaintiff tripped on a dolly or “pallet jack” which was low to the ground and had been left in an aisle of defendants’ store. The fact that the presence of the dolly was open and obvious did not eliminate the defendants’ obligation to keep the premises safe:

Proof that a dangerous condition is open and obvious does not preclude a finding of liability against an owner for failure to maintain property in a safe condition … . While such proof is relevant to the issue of the plaintiff’s comparative negligence, a hazard that is open and obvious “may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff distracted” … . “The determination of [w]hether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances'” …, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case … .

Here, the defendants contend that, even if they created the condition at issue, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the pallet jack in the aisle was an open and obvious condition, and not inherently dangerous. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the pallet jack was inherently dangerous …, and failed to establish prima facie that they maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition… . Russo v Home Goods, Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05529, 2nd Dept 7-30-14

 

You might also like
IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER A LADDER WAS REQUIRED FOR PLAINTIFF’S WORK MANDATED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; RE: THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANT-OWNER HAD A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LADDER-SAFETY PROVISIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE, THE OWNER’S LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY IS NOT BASED UPON CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CONDITIONAL SEALING OF THE RECORDS OF DRUG-RELATED CONVICTIONS PURSUANT TO CPL 160.58 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF DWAI WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE SEALING STATUTE, THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM WHICH DEFENDANT COMPLETED MET THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEALING STATUTE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT STRIKE PLAINTIFF AND WAS UNDER NO DUTY TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF FROM AN ASSAULT BY OTHERS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BAR-FIGHT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ISSUE ON A PRIOR APPEAL WAS WHETHER THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE GRANTED; THE ISSUES ARE DIFFERENT AND THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION FOR COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION UNDER CPLR 205(A) IS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE PRIOR ACTION WAS VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUED; HERE THE CPLR 205(A) EXTENSION WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR A STATE ACTION WHICH PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO COMMENCE AFTER VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUING A SIMILAR FEDERAL ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Transit Authority Not Liable Under the Emergency Doctrine As a Matter of Law
AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAL PROPERTY PASSED TO THE BENEFICIARY IN THE WILL UPON DEATH, NOT UPON SUBSEQUENT PROBATE; THEREFORE THE CONVEYANCE WAS VALID AND THE DEED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED VOID (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

“Cleaning” Within the Meaning of Labor Law 240(1) Explained In the Context of a Challenge to the Tax Assessment of a Home, the Town Must...