You are here: / / NO DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF TRACKED IN WATER DURING RAINSTORM.

NO DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF TRACKED IN WATER DURING RAINSTORM.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant bus company did not have a duty to keep the entry steps free of tracked in water during a rainstorm. Plaintiff slipped and fell on the steps while attempting to board the bus:

​

Plaintiff’s claim that Swift River negligently allowed a slippery condition to persist on the stairs leading into the bus was precluded, as a matter of law, by plaintiff’s testimony that it was raining at the time of the accident … . “Defendant is not obligated to provide a constant remedy for the tracking of water onto a bus during an ongoing storm” … , and here, the evidence showed that plaintiff was the last of a group of people to board the bus during the rainstorm … . Collins v Nate Tours Bus Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 02739. 1st Dept 4-6-17

NEGLIGENCE (NO DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF TRACKED IN WATER DURING RAINSTORM)/SLIP AND FALL (NO DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF TRACKED IN WATER DURING RAINSTORM)/BUSES (SLIP AND FALL. NO DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF TRACKED IN WATER DURING RAINSTORM)/WATER, TRACKED IN (BUSES, NO DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF TRACKED IN WATER DURING RAINSTORM)

You might also like
RIDER ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING THROWN FROM A HORSE.
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND COUNSEL DURING THE SALE OF PLAINTIFFS’ BUSINESS TO DEFENDANT ARE PRIVILEGED (FIRST DEPT).
PROOF THE ELEVATOR DOOR MALFUNCTIONED WHEN PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE ELEVATOR DID NOT SUPPORT A PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT IN POLICY FOR ADDITIONAL INSUREDS DID NOT REQUIRE AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT.
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED A RELEASE WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE CASE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL AND SENT BACK (FIRST DEPT).
Warrantless Search of Backpack After Juvenile Was Handcuffed and Placed in a Police Car Justified by “Close Spatial and Temporal Proximity” and “Exigent Circumstances”
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENT’S STATUTORY ACTIONS AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S OFFICE OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE AUTISTIC SIX-YEAR-OLD STUDENT WAS TRANSPORTED TO SCHOOL ON A FULL-SIZED BUS, GENERATING NINE INCIDENT REPORTS IN A SIX-WEEK PERIOD, INSTEAD OF THE MINI-BUS REQUIRED BY THE INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (FIRST 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

FAIR MARKET RENT APPEAL PROPERLY DISMISSED. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A RECORDED OPTION TO BUY LAND WAS PROPERLY ORDERED DESPITE...