You are here: / / OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP...

OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Defendant (Schindler) failed to secure a seven-foot wooden panel which apparently fell and injured plaintiff. The court noted that the open and obvious nature of the panel eliminated the duty to warn but not the duty to make the premises safe:

Schindler’s arguments that the wooden panel that its workers leaned against the wall was open and obvious, that plaintiff failed to use her senses to observe it, and that any barricades or warnings would not have prevented the accident, are unpreserved as they were not presented to the motion court … . In any event, we would find such arguments unavailing because even if a hazard is open and obvious, that merely eliminates the duty to warn, but not the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . Here, it is undisputed that Schindler’s employees failed to secure the seven-foot tall wooden panel that they leaned against the wall or create a perimeter around it to prevent others from entering the area. Polini v Schindler El. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00254, 1st Dept 1-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE)/WARN, DUTY TO (OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE)

You might also like
NOTES TAKEN BY AN OBSERVER HIRED BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO WITNESS AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANTS’ DOCTOR ARE PRIVILEGED AS MATERIAL PREPARED FOR TRIAL, THE OBSERVER WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).
ACTION BASED UPON FAILURE TO SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A HOSPITAL REST ROOM SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
Applying New Jersey Law—Removal of Safety Guard from Machine Did Not Destroy the Applicability of Workers’ Compensation as the Exclusive Remedy
Merger Doctrine and “As Is” Clause Did Not Bar Suit/Fraud-Based Causes of Action Did Not Duplicate Breach of Contract Cause of Action
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT.
THE MOTION TO INTERVENE DID NOT HAVE THE PROPOSED PLEADING ATTACHED; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DOCTRINE OF DEFINITENESS WAS PROPERLY NOT APPLIED, DOLLAR-AMOUNT OF THE FEE AT ISSUE COULD BE DETERMINED BY INDUSTRY PRACTICE.
DESTRUCTION (SPOLIATION) OF EVIDENCE WARRANTED STRIKING THE PLEADINGS.

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SIDEWALK LOW-LYING TRIPPING HAZARD NARROWED THE PASSABLE... FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM...