You are here: / / SIGN ON A LIGHT POLE, WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN JUMPING TO CATCH A BALL,...

SIGN ON A LIGHT POLE, WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN JUMPING TO CATCH A BALL, WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the sign which plaintiff struck when jumping to catch a ball was an open and obvious condition which was not actionable. The sign was six feet seven inches from the ground attached to a light pole:

​

“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” … . “[An] owner, however, has no duty to protect against an open and obvious condition provided that, as a matter of law, the condition is not inherently dangerous” … . Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that the sign that the plaintiff came into contact with was open and obvious, as it was not only readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, but was known to the plaintiff prior to the accident and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous … . Contrary to his contentions on appeal, the plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the sign was inherently dangerous. Genefar v Great Neck Park Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 08812, Second Dept 12-20-

 

NEGLIGENCE (OPEN AND OBVIOUS, SIGN ON A LIGHT POLE, WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN JUMPING TO CATCH A BALL, WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (NEGLIGENCE, SIGN ON A LIGHT POLE, WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN JUMPING TO CATCH A BALL, WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Parolees May Move for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act
Supreme Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction In an Action Seeking Compensation for an Alleged Unconstitutional Taking of Land Based Upon the Denial of a Subdivision Application—the Court of Claims Has Exclusive Jurisdiction
Bank Account in Name “Ann … or Thomas…” Could Be Turned Over to Pay Debt Owed by Thomas 
ONE OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS, THE OWNER OF THE OTHER TWO, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW; THEREFORE THE $10,000,000 PUNITIVE-DAMAGES JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OWNER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
A “CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED” AFFIDAVIT DENYING DEFENDANT RESIDED AT THE ADDRESS WHERE SERVICE WAS MADE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
Glass Plate in Wall Under Demolition Was Not a “Falling Object” within the Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)
THE STATE HIGHWAY LAW MAY HAVE IMPOSED A DUTY ON THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; IN ADDITION, THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO LIMIT THE REACH OF OVERLY BROAD RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS (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

PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LEAVES ON A STAIRWAY CONSTITUTED AN OPEN... BUILDING OWNER, MANAGER, AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO SUMMARY...