You are here: / / Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Pursuant to Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine—Doctrine...
,

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Pursuant to Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine—Doctrine Explained In Depth

The First Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgement should have been granted to the plaintiff pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  Plaintiff, a passenger on defendant’s train, was struck when a ceiling panel (used to access the ventilation system) swung open.  The decision includes an extensive discussion of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine:

While summary judgment is rarely granted in res ipsa loquitur cases, it is appropriate in “exceptional case[s],” such as this one, where “the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … .

To demonstrate a claim under the doctrine, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of defendant’s negligence; (2) the instrumentality causing the accident was within defendant’s exclusive control; and (3) the accident was not due to any voluntary action or contribution by plaintiff … .

Plaintiff met all three elements with her submission of witness testimony and the testimony of defendant’s foreman. The foreman testified that the train’s HVAC and ventilation system was accessible through the ceiling panel that hit plaintiff. He also testified that to his knowledge, no one but defendant’s personnel accessed the ceiling panels and that he had no explanation for how the accident occurred. The foreman described the panel as being fastened to the ceiling with four screws outside and two safety latches and a safety chain inside.

Defendant concedes the first and third elements but argues that it did not have exclusive control over the ceiling panels. However, defendant offers no evidence to support its argument. Rather, defendant simply offers its attorney’s affirmation, in which counsel opines that “the only logical conclusion,” considering the foreman’s testimony, was that the accident occurred because [*2]of tampering by unauthorized individuals. This statement, which amounts to no more than counsel’s speculation about what might have happened, is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion … . Barney-Yeboah v Metro-North Commuter RR, 2014 NY Slip Op 06036, 1st Dept 9-4-14

 

You might also like
NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION; IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND FELL WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEBRIS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
FATHER’S REQUEST FOR UNSUPERVISED VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENDING PERMANENT NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL GOING DOWN PERMANENT STEPS AFTER HE STEPPED OFF THE LADDER; THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)—NO FAILURE OR ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT CON EDISION EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO SUPPORT THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
​ THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE AGENT SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF COULD RELY ON THE AGENT TO CORRECT ANY MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE INSURANCE APPLICATION (FIRST 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

One Year Statute of Limitations in Labor Law 740 Trumps the One-Year-Ninety-Days... Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Should...