You are here: / / FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY ON EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS...
,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY ON EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury on the effect of the defendant’s violation of a statute and/or a regulation required reversal of the defense verdict in this slip and fall case. The New York State Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act require eight-foot wide aisles for access to handicapped parking spots.  Plaintiff, who had a handicapped parking permit, slipped on a grassy slope after getting out of his car. The plaintiff’s expert testified the parking spot where plaintiff fell did not comply with the statutory/regulatory requirements for handicapped parking. The plaintiff requested the jury be instructed on the effect of a statutory violation (negligence per se) and the defendant requested the jury be instructed on the effect of a regulatory violation (some evidence of negligence). The judge denied both requests. The Second Department ordered a new trial:

Jury instructions should adequately convey “the sum and substance of the applicable law to be charged” … . A new trial is warranted when an error is “so significant that the jury was prevented from fairly considering the issues at trial” … .

“The general rule is that the violation of a statute that establishes a specific safety duty constitutes negligence per se” … . When evidence is presented that a defendant violated such a statute, the jury’s role is to determine whether the violation of that statute proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury (… PJI 2:25). Moreover, if proven, a violation of the Building Code of New York State can be considered by a jury as some evidence of negligence (… PJI 2:29…). * * *

Based on the evidence, the trial court should have charged the jury as to the language of the applicable sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act along with PJI 2:25 and the applicable sections of the Building Code of New York State and the Property Maintenance Code of New York State, in conjunction with PJI 2:29. The failure to do so cannot be considered harmless error since these provisions are applicable to the subject parking lot … . DiLallo v Katsan LP, 2015 NY Slip Op 09248, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS)/EVIDENCE (EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS IN NEGLIGENCE CASE)/STATUTORY VIOLATION (NEGLIGENCE PER SE)/REGULATORY VIOLATIONS (SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE)

You might also like
POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
Malpractice/Negligence Claims Can Not Be Brought By Party Not In Privity with Law Firm
PROPER VENUE FOR CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS STARTED IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST ACTION WAS STARTED.
CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT MET, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BY MAKING A FINDING IN A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER.
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO UNPAID SALARY, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 198 AND CPLR 5001 IN THIS BREACH-OF-A-WRITTEN-EMPLOYMENT-CONTRACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CAR DEALER, DUE TO AN ERROR, DID NOT SUBMIT THE CORRECT REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MANDATED FIVE-DAY PERIOD, THAT DEFECT DID NOT INVALIDATE THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE DRIVER INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT; THE DEALER WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (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

DEFENDANT UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL;... “TRIAL PREPARATION” EXCEPTION TO A DETERMINATION WHETHER A PHOTOGRAPHIC...