You are here: / / Slippery Dock Was an Open and Obvious Condition—Landowner Had No...

Slippery Dock Was an Open and Obvious Condition—Landowner Had No Duty to Protect Against the Condition

Plaintiff was injured when he stepped on a dock from a boat.  Plaintiff alleged the dock was slippery. The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment because a landowner has no duty to protect against an open and obvious condition:

A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [its] property in a safe condition under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the potential injuries, the burden of avoiding the risk, and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff’s presence on the property” … . Here, the defendant met its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . “[A] landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is inherent or incident to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it” … . A slippery condition on a dock is necessarily incidental to its nature and location near a body of water … . Mossberg v Crow’s Nest Mar. of Oceanside, 2015 NY Slip Op 04618, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

You might also like
Before a Sex Offender Can Be Allowed to Represent Himself in a Mental Hygiene Law Section 10 Proceeding (to Determine Whether the Offender Should Be Civilly Confined), the Court Must Conduct the Same “Searching Inquiry” Required in Criminal and Certain Family Court Proceedings to Determine Whether the Offender Understands the Risks of Going Forward Without Counsel
ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A WORKER UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6), HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, BY CONTRACT, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY AT THE WORKSITE AND SUPERVISED THE WORK; THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND POTENTIALLY LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
Lawsuit Prohibited by Unambiguous Release
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE JURY PROPERLY FOUND THE LANDLORD NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO MAINTAIN A HANDRAIL BUT THE LOOSE HANDRAIL WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF-BANK’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER, IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT GRANDFATHER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO CONTROL HIS COLLEGE-AGE GRANDSON IN THIS ROAD RAGE INCIDENT, THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, HOWEVER THE AIDING-AND-ABETTING ASSAULT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT GRANDFATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Taser or Stun Gun Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument” for Purposes of Burglary and Menacing Statutes; Court Must Articulate Specific Reasons for Shackling Defendant During Trial

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

To Succeed In a Legal Malpractice Action Stemming from Representation in a Criminal... Abutting Property Owners Not Liable for Falls in Sidewalk Tree Wells (NYC)