You are here: / / EXPOSED TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS....

EXPOSED TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS. ​

The Second Department determined an exposed tree root was an open and obvious condition. Plaintiffs’ slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed:

“A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [its] property in a safe condition under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the potential injuries, the burden of avoiding the risk, and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff’s presence on the property”… . However, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the tree root was an open and obvious condition and inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and was known to the injured plaintiff prior to the accident … . . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Commender v Strathmore Ct. Home Owners Assn., 2017 NY Slip Op 0519, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

You might also like
Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained
MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECIDED BY DEFAULT CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN LITIGATED (SECOND DEPT).
Injury While Trying to Prevent a Ladder (Used by a Co-worker) from Falling Is Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)
APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO FIND NEW COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NEARLY $800,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER TOLD THE COURT HE HAD RETAINED COUNSEL BUT COUNSEL COULD NOT ATTEND THE PETITION-TO-RELOCATE HEARING THAT DAY, COURT WENT AHEAD WITH THE HEARING, FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
Elements of Negligence, General Business Law 349 and Tortious Interference with Contract Causes of Action Succinctly Described

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

DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF... PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK FROM BEHIND, NO EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE...