You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE TAILGATE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact about defendants’ constructive notice of a defective truck tailgate. Plaintiff, a truck driver, was injured when loading a pallet onto the truck (owned by defendants and rented to plaintiff’s employer). Plaintiff alleged his injury was caused by the deteriorated condition of the tailgate (a gap which caused the pallet to get stuck and then roll on the sloping tailgate). Plaintiff’s experts raised a question of fact about whether the condition developed over a period of months:

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether defendants had constructive notice of the alleged defects by submitting an affidavit by a licensed engineer and motor vehicle inspector who opined that the alleged defects developed over the course of months as a result of wear and tear and improper maintenance. Contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff’s expert’s opinions are based on evidence in the record, namely, plaintiff’s description of the alleged gap …  and the photographs that he testified accurately depicted the alleged slope at the time of his accident … , and are not inadmissible merely because the expert examined the truck more than a year after the accident occurred … . Rosada v Mendon Truck Rentals, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05314, 1st Dept 6-29-17

 

You might also like
THE FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CAUSES OF ACTION INVOLVED CONNECTICUT PROPERTIES AND WERE TIME-BARRED IN CONNECTICUT; NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE RENDERED THE ACTIONS TIME-BARRED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT UPDATE ITS ADDRESS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS AND DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR DEFAULT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE NEED BE SHOWN IN A MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317; DEFAULT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN APPROACHED BY POLICE IN PLAINCLOTHES AND DRIVING AN UNMARKED CAR DID NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WEAPON DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE SMALL CONCRETE PEBBLES UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED DID NOT CONSTITUTE A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE AND WERE NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD.
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STATE’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER SHOULD BE SUBJECT... CONVENIENCE STORE HAD TAKEN ADEQUATE MEASURES TO ADDRESS TRACKED IN SLUSH AND...