You are here: / / COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED...
,

COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN DUE TO A RECENT STORM.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant transit authority’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff slipped on snow on a step as she got off a bus:

Plaintiff testified that she slipped and fell as she was exiting a bus owned and operated by defendants because the step was covered with a slushy condition. She and the bus driver both stated that there was snow all over the ground from a storm that had ended earlier that day, and certified meteorological records submitted by defendants demonstrated that a snow storm that started the previous night and ended earlier in the day of the accident had left about six inches of snow on the ground. The bus driver also testified that passengers tracked snow onto the bus on their shoes and boots as they boarded.

Common carriers are not obligated to provide a “constant remedy” for the tracking of water onto a bus during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter … . Similarly, when the ground is covered with snow left by a recent storm, “it would be unreasonable to expect the [defendants] to constantly clean the front steps of the subject bus” … . Plaintiff’s argument that defendants failed to show lack of notice of the slushy condition is irrelevant, since they did not breach any duty of care under the existing weather conditions. Harbison v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 01503, 1st Dept 2-28-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN DUE TO A RECENT STORM)/BUSES (SLIP AND FALL, COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN DUE TO A RECENT STORM)/SLIP AND FALL (BUSES, COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN DUE TO A RECENT STORM)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF, A TEXAS RESIDENT WHO WAS A FLIGHT ATTENDANT FOR 30 YEARS WITH MONTHLY STAY-OVERS IN NEW YORK, DEMONSTRATED NEW YORK HAD LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED TALCUM POWDER PLAINTIFF USED; THE TALCUM POWDER ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S MESOTHELIOMA (FIRST DEPT).
AMONG SEVERAL LABOR LAW, NEGLIGENCE AND INSURANCE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, THE 2ND DEPT DETERMINED SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN ITS LABOR LAW 200 ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).
THE 30-DAY NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE NULLIFIED THE ACCELERATION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE NYC ADMININSTRATIVE CODE MAKES TENANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM SIDEWALKS, IT DOES NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO DO SO; THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ALSO MAKES PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL; THE LEASE SPECIFICALLY STATED DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING SNOW AND ICE FROM THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S TRANSLATED AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE; THE ROADWAY WHERE THE COLLISION OCCURRED WAS NOT DIVIDED INTO TWO OR MORE CLEARLY MARKED LANES; THEREFORE THE “UNSAFE LANE CHANGE” STATUTE (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1128(A)) DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
FALL ON THE SURFACE OF SCAFFOLDING NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), OVERSIGHT OF SITE SAFETY NOT ENOUGH FOR LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION.
ALLEGATION THE DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO REFRESH THE EYEWITNESS’S RECOLLECTION LEADING TO ERRONEOUS TESTIMONY STATED A CAUSE OF ACTON FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE.
OFFICE OF MEDICAID INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD NOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS IN AN AMOUNT HIGHER THAN SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN ITS WRITTEN NOTICE.

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

VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE... PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT...