You are here: / / Management Agreement Did Not Give Rise to Tort Liability for Slip and ...
,

Management Agreement Did Not Give Rise to Tort Liability for Slip and Fall

In determining the management agreement with a hospital did not give rise to tort liability for a slip and fall on the hospital premises, the Second Department explained the relevant law:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are three exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm or creates or exacerbates a hazardous condition; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties; and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . “As part of its prima facie showing, a contracting defendant is only required to negate the applicability of those Espinal exceptions that were expressly pleaded by the plaintiff or expressly set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars” … .

Here, the plaintiffs alleged that Sodexo [the building manager] maintained and controlled the premises. Sodexo established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence establishing that the plaintiffs were not parties to the management agreement and thus, it owed the injured plaintiff no duty of care …; that the management agreement was not so comprehensive and exclusive as to displace the Hospital’s duty to maintain the premises safely …; and that it did not create the allegedly hazardous condition … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Sperling v Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04840, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

You might also like
Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email Address Did Not Constitute an “Offer” Which Could Be “Accepted” to Create a Contract/In Light of the Disclaimers the Promotion Was Not “Deceptive” and Plaintiff Suffered No “Actual Injury” within the Meaning of the General Business Law
THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE PIT WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Four-Year Statute of Limitations for Rent Overcharge Claim
Plaintiff Did Not Raise an Issue of Fact Re: Vicious Propensities of Defendants’ Dog
Participation in Arbitration Precluded Action to Stay Arbitration
ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION INSPECTED THE VACANT PROPERTY AND MADE PERIODIC REPAIRS, IT WAS NOT A “MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION” SUCH THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED; IN ORDER TO BE DEEMED A “MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION,” THE MORTGAGOR MUST CONSENT TO THE BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
POSSIBLE CONFUSION ABOUT WHICH MICHAEL YACUBICH AT THE SAME ADDRESS WAS THE “MIKE YACUBICH” SEEKING TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR ASSEMBLY WAS NOT A PROPER GROUND FOR INVALIDATING THE DESIGNATING PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Pursuant to the Public Authorities Law, Interest on a Judgment To Be Paid by... Florida’s Law of Restrictive Covenants Re: Non-Solicitation of Customers...