You are here: / / IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE...
,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant bus company (Hudson) was liable for plaintiff's fall. She stepped in a hole in the sidewalk as she got off the bus. The court noted a duty to provide a safe place to get off the bus and a contractual duty to notify Port Authority of needed repairs:

Issues of fact exist as to whether Hudson breached its duty as a common carrier to provide plaintiff with a safe place to disembark … . The record shows that 15 or 20 passengers exited the bus before plaintiff. As she alighted, she stepped into a hole on the sidewalk and fell. The bus driver corroborated this testimony, stating that the hole was on the sidewalk, “[w]ithin one step” of where plaintiff disembarked. The bus driver further admitted that the hole caused plaintiff to fall. Additionally, plaintiff testified that, upon seeing where she fell, the bus driver exclaimed, “[Y]ou fell in that hole, they're supposed to fix that hole.” Under the circumstances, where plaintiff stepped into a hole immediately upon alighting from the bus, the fact that a number of passengers safely descended before she did does not entitled Hudson to summary judgment … .

Issues of fact as to, among other things, whether Hudson breached its contractual duty to notify Port Authority of any needed repairs at the gate where the accident occurred compel denial of summary judgment on Port Authority's contractual indemnification claim. Bruno v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 00069, First Dept 1-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND (FALL QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES  (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO SUPPORT LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT IN ISRAEL; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT JUSTIFY JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS COLLATERAL TO THE CONTRACT, NOT THE BREACH OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF (FIRST DEPT).
Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion
DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED A PLEA WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN MANDATORY DEPORTATION COULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT; THE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
REFERENCES TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR COMMISSION OF A VIOLENT CRIME AND IMPRISONMENT WERE INTERTWINED WITH THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHED THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT.
IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE CONTRACT ALLOWS REFUSAL OF LOANS FOR ANY REASON, EVEN THOUGH THE REFUSAL MAY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY AIMED AT PUTTING PLAINTIFF OUT OF BUSINESS.
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR WORK WHEN A PERMANENT LADDER IN AN ELEVATOR SHAFT ALLEGEDLY VIBRATED CAUSING HIM TO FALL; EVEN IF A HARNESS WERE AVAILABLE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMANDED; DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT BY PLEADING GUILTY TO A PROBATION VIOLATION HE WAS GIVING UP HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING; APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVIDENCE BUILDING OWNER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ELEVATOR MISLEVELING, EVIDENCE... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY...