You are here: / / COMMON CARRIER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALK CLEAR OF ICE AND SNOW...

COMMON CARRIER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALK CLEAR OF ICE AND SNOW BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK SERVED AS INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SEVERAL COMMON CARRIERS, NOT SOLELY DEFENDANT COMMON CARRIER.

The Second Department determined defendant common carrier (Long Island Railroad) did not have a duty to keep the sidewalk where plaintiff fell free of ice and snow because the sidewalk served as ingress and egress for several common carriers. The duty to keep the sidewalk clear would apply to defendant only if the sidewalk service as ingress and egress solely for defendant:

​

In “areas that serve primarily for ingress and egress to a subway or other similar station that is served by a single carrier,” a common carrier must maintain a safe means of ingress and egress for the use of its passengers, even if the area is owned and maintained by another, so long as the area is constantly and notoriously used by its passengers as a means of approach … . This duty of care “has not been extended to common areas in a multi-carrier facility” … . Mashall v Long Is. R.R., 2017 NY Slip Op 02637, 2nd Dept 4-5-17

NEGLIGENCE (COMMON CARRIER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALK CLEAR OF ICE AND SNOW BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK SERVED AS INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SEVERAL COMMON CARRIERS, NOT SOLELY DEFENDANT COMMON CARRIER)/COMMON CARRIERS (SLIP AND FALL,  (COMMON CARRIER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALK CLEAR OF ICE AND SNOW BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK SERVED AS INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SEVERAL COMMON CARRIERS, NOT SOLELY DEFENDANT COMMON CARRIER)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, COMMON CARRIERS, (COMMON CARRIER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALK CLEAR OF ICE AND SNOW BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK SERVED AS INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SEVERAL COMMON CARRIERS, NOT SOLELY DEFENDANT COMMON CARRIER)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, COMMON CARRIERS, COMMON CARRIER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALK CLEAR OF ICE AND SNOW BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK SERVED AS INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SEVERAL COMMON CARRIERS, NOT SOLELY DEFENDANT COMMON CARRIER)

You might also like
STATUTORY AMENDMENTS REPEALING MANDATORY SURCHARGES AND CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE FEES FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS WERE REMEDIAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).
Bicyclist Assumed Risk of Injury While Jumping His Bicycle Off a Dirt Mound on a Dirt Bike Trail In a Park
THE JUDGE’S INTERFERENCE IN AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE DEFENSE SUMMATION AND IMPROPER EXCLUSION AND ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Allege a Favorable Result Would Have Obtained “But For” the Attorney’s Alleged Malpractice Required Dismissal of the Complaint
DEFENDANT CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE INVALID; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Order of Protection Reversed–Family Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Party Ordered to Stay Away Was Not Related to, a Member of the Household of, or in an Intimate Relationship With, the Subject of the Order of Protection
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE EXISTS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS REAR END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

PEDESTRIAN STRUCK WHILE LAWFULLY IN CROSSWALK ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT,... DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE...