You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive, substantive, two-justice partial dissent, determined there were questions of fact whether an opening in the floor constituted an open and obvious condition and whether the contractor (Harbour) which removed an obsolete tank, exposing the opening, was liable to plaintiff for “launching an instrument of harm.” Plaintiff was working near the opening, facing away from it, when he stepped back into the opening and fell. Plaintiff had taken a picture of the opening months before and shown it to the property owner’s manager. The dissenting justices argued that the contract between Harbour and the property owner did not obligate it to repair the opening which was revealed when the tank was removed and, therefore, Harbour did not breach a duty of care owed to plaintiff:

​

Even if Harbour’s contract did not require that it cover, remediate, fill in or repair any of the floor openings resulting from its work, Harbour did not take even minimal corrective measures to protect the exposed opening in the floor after it removed the obsolete oil tank. Thus, while its removal of the tank was in fulfillment of its contractual obligation, a reasonable jury could find that Harbour’s leaving an exposed and unprotected opening in the floor exposed, caused or created a dangerous condition even if previously the metal plate containing the opening was not unsafe. The dissent’s view relies on cases where the defendant did not owe a duty of care because the condition the plaintiff complained of was precisely what was called for in the defendant’s contract … .  … There is a view of the facts that Harbour, by leaving the exposed opening without any kind of warning or minimal protection, created or caused an unsafe condition, or made the previously obscured opening in the metal plate “less safe” than before Harbour did its work … . Thus the issue is not whether Harbour had a contractual obligation to protect the opening, but whether by leaving the opening in the metal plate exposed it created an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff. Farrugia v 1440 Broadway Assoc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00347, First Dept 1-18-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ESPINAL, TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY,  QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/LAUNCH INSTRUMENT OF HARM (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY BASED UPON CONTRACT, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS  (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY BASED UPON CONTRACT, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE USED HER ARM TO KEEP THE ELEVATOR DOOR FROM CLOSING; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE ELEVATOR WAS IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION TWO WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
A Misrepresentation Which Is the Subject of a Provision in a Contract May Be the Basis for a Distinct Fraud Cause of Action Which Is Not Duplicative of the Breach of Contract Cause of Action
Medical Examiner’s Testimony Did Not Rule Out the Possibility that Someone Other than the Defendant Contributed DNA to a Mixture from At Least Three Persons—Conviction Reversed as Against the Weight of the Evidence
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY DEEMED INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CORRECTION LAW REQUIRING A SEX OFFENDER TO VERIFY HIS OR HER ADDRESS EVERY NINETY DAYS IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS AS APPLIED TO HOMELESS SEX OFFENDERS (FIRST DEPT). ​
Sworn Juror Who Was From the Same Neighborhood as Defendant Stated His Fear of Drug Dealers Would Prevent Him from Reaching an Impartial Verdict—the Juror Was Properly Discharged as “Grossly Unqualified” and “For Cause” Based Upon a Newly Discovered Ground
Plaintiff Not Entitled to Disqualification of a Defendant’s Law Firm—Relevant Communication Did Not Have the Potential to Be Significantly Harmful to Plaintiff—Information Was Generally Known
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

APARTMENTS RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS PURSUANT TO RPTL 421-g ARE SUBJECT TO THE... ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT RETURNED TO WORK AT FULL PAY, SHOULD SHE STOP WORK IN THE...