You are here: / / DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF...

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE FAILURE OF SHRINK WRAP USED TO SECURE BOXES, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED MOVING THE LOOSE BOXES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant's motion for summary judgment in this personal injury case was properly granted. Plaintiff, a delivery truck driver, was injured unloading loose boxes from a trailer owned by defendant. Plaintiff alleged the shrink wrap securing the boxes broke, which led to his injury unloading the loose boxes. The defendant demonstrated it lacked actual and constructive notice of the failure of the shrink wrap. The fact that shrink wrap had failed on other occasions did not raise a question of fact. The court noted that plaintiff was not obligated to pick up the loose boxes, so the failed shrink wrap was a condition leading to his injury but was not the cause:

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law first by showing that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition. Defendant submitted, inter alia, plaintiff's testimony that he and defendant's employees inspected the trailer before he left defendant's facility to commence deliveries, and did not observe loose boxes on the floor. Nor did plaintiff observe loose boxes when he re-secured the load after his first delivery on the day of his accident … . Defendant also showed that it lacked actual or constructive notice that there were boxes on the trailer's floor. Plaintiff testified he did not notify defendant about the loose boxes before he decided to manually unload them at his second delivery of the day … . …

The possibility of injury arose only when plaintiff voluntarily opted to pick up the boxes and toss them to a store employee, even though he was not required to do so … .

Furthermore, plaintiff's certified packing expert failed to identify any professional or industry standard to substantiate his assertions … . The fact that defendant may have been aware that shrink-wrapping had previously come loose from other pallets did not establish that defendant had constructive notice that the subject pallet was loose before plaintiff sustained the injuries alleged … . Lynch v C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00110, First Dept 1-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE FAILURE OF SHRINK WRAP USED TO SECURE BOXES, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED MOVING THE LOOSE BOXES (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, DANGEROUS CONDITION,  DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE FAILURE OF SHRINK WRAP USED TO SECURE BOXES, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED MOVING THE LOOSE BOXES (FIRST DEPT))

/by
You might also like
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT DENIAL OF MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY, A HEARSAY LETTER FROM THE NYS OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT REGISTER, FINDING CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER TO BE UNFOUNDED, WAS INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
Contract with Construction Manager Did Not Give the Manager Sufficient Supervisory Control to Impose Liability Under Labor Law 200, 240 (1) or 246 (1)
TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DECLARED A MISTRIAL TO ACCOMMODATE A JUROR’S WEEKEND PLANS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED; RETRIAL BARRED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
OHIO TRUSTEE’S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT PURSUANT TO A ROYALTY AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONFER JURISDICTION UPON NEW YORK, DESPITE A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION (FIRST DEPT).
Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO HIS MOTHER’S APARTMENT.
CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION.
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK AND THE LOCATION OF AN UNPADDED SNOW MACHINE POLE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF GAVE CONFLICTING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE SHE SLIPPED AND... DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT IN A POLICE REPORT ACKNOWLEDGING FAILURE TO STOP...