You are here: / / TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS...

TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT.

The Second Department determined the tree root over which plaintiff tripped and fell was open obvious and not actionable:

“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” … . However, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the tree root was an open and obvious condition and inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and was known to the plaintiff … . Dottavio v Aspen Knolls Estates Home Owners Assn., 2017 NY Slip Op 01182, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

NEGLIGENCE (TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT)/SLIP AND FALL (TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT)/TREE ROOT (TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT)

You might also like
IF PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION TO SET ASIDE A DEED PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE HAD TO PROVE THE DEED WAS FORGED; TO WIN A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT MUST UTTERLY REFUTE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE DEED WAS FORGED WHICH DEFENDANT FAILED TO DO HERE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS MADE PURSUANT TO CPL 220.60, NOT CPL 330.30; THEREFORE THE “OUTSIDE THE RECORD” EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether the Risks of Participating in a Self-Defense Tournament Were Concealed and Unreasonably Increased and Whether Infant Plaintiff Was Negligently Supervised
THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL ON ONE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity Provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law
Despite the Fact that Defendant Entered Guilty Pleas in Two Counties, Only One SORA Disposition for the “Current Offenses” (Which Included the Offenses from Both Counties) Can Be Held
AN INSPECTION OF THE BLACKTOP FIVE TO SEVEN WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED IN A HOLE AND FELL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (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

CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE ROADWAY DEPRESSION WHICH CAUSED... DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVER...