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)

/by
You might also like
Child’s Out-of Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated
CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN ‘EXCESSIVE SENTENCE’ APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).
NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY.
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT, THROUGH AN UNLOCKED DOOR, ENTERED A VESTIBULE THAT WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO USE BY TENANTS.
People’s Failure to Provide Timely Notice of the Intent to Present Witnesses to Rebut the Testimony of Defendant’s Alibi Witness Required Reversal
Owners of Single Family Residence Not Liable for Defects in Abutting Sidewalk
42 USC 1983 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL-LAW NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT; THE NOTICE OF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM FOR THE REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EXCUSES WERE NOT VALID AND THE VILLAGE DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE CLAIMS SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE POLICE REPORT AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).
Decedent’s Acknowledgment of Paternity of Nonmarital Child Precluded Objections to Distribution by Sibling

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...