You are here: / / WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.

WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.

The Second Department determined the wheel stop was an open and obvious condition which can not be the basis for liability in a slip and fall case:

While a property owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner for its patrons … , there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which is not inherently dangerous … . “A wheel stop or concrete parking lot divider which is clearly visible presents no unreasonable risk of harm” … .

Here, the defendant … established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and photographic evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff tripped when her foot came into contact with a wheel stop, which was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, as she attempted to step over it on the way to her car … . Lacerra v CVS Pharmacy, 2016 NY Slip Op 06474, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/SLIP AND FALL (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/WHEEL STOP (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)

You might also like
Teacher Had Not Acquired “Tenure by Estoppel”
Unexcused Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders Warranted Striking of the Pleadings
Erroneous Admission of Hearsay and Expert Testimony Re: ANSI Standards Required Reversal of Million Dollar Verdict in Slip and Fall Case
Measure of Damages for Taken Land Explained
DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
Validating Petition Not Sufficiently Particularized
Court Properly Accepted Defendant’s Consent to the Determination He Is a Sex Offender Requiring Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment (SIST)—The Relevant Statute Does Not Mandate a Hearing
EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; THE EVIDENCE THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAILURE TO PAY SUPPORT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF A SUPPORT... CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION...