You are here: / / THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE...

THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.

The Second Department, in affirming defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this slip and fall case, noted, with respect to the snow removal contractor, the failure to salt an icy area is not a ground for liability to a third party, failure to salt does not “launch an instrument of harm:”

​

A snow removal contractor cannot be held liable for personal injuries “on the ground that the snow removal contractor’s passive omissions constituted the launch of a force or instrument of harm, where there is no evidence that the passive conduct created or exacerbated a dangerous condition” … . For example, “a failure to apply salt would ordinarily neither create ice nor exacerbate an icy condition, as the absence of salt would merely prevent a preexisting ice condition from improving” … . Moreover, the exception for launching a force or instrument of harm “cannot be triggered where . . . there is only speculation and conjecture regarding whether the contractor created or exacerbated an icy condition” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged that [the contractor] should have cleared snow and ice from the bank’s roof and awnings to prevent melting and refreezing such as that which allegedly caused his fall. However, such service was not encompassed by its contract. In any event, in failing to provide services beyond those included in its contract, [the contractor] at most failed to guard against a future possibility of ice formation. This is insufficient to support liability … . Somekh v Valley Natl. Bank, 2017 NY Slip Op 04487, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR (SLIP AND FALL, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)

You might also like
Height Differential Open and Obvious
THE BANK WHICH COMMENCED THE 2006 FORECLOSURE HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AND DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING IN 2006; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
CVS, A DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL; DEFENDANT DOCTORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT CVS’S PROVIDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WITH THE WRONG DOSAGE OF MEDICINE MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS DEATH (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE, A SEPARATE PAPER, WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE, AS REQUIRED BY THE UCC; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT GRANDFATHER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO CONTROL HIS COLLEGE-AGE GRANDSON IN THIS ROAD RAGE INCIDENT, THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, HOWEVER THE AIDING-AND-ABETTING ASSAULT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT GRANDFATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTFF’S ATTORNEY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND BISHME’S DAUGHTER TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY ABUSED AND NEGLECTED BASED UPON BISHME’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ANOTHER CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION OF TWO DRUGS TO SAMUEL D, A MENTALLY ILL PERSON, OVER SAMUEL D’S OBJECTION (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

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE... CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A...