You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a comprehensive decision not fully summarized here, determined there was a question of fact whether the snow removal contractor (SWBG) had launched an instrument of harm or created or exacerbated a dangerous condition by piling snow near where plaintiff slipped and fell:

With respect to the third-party action, we agree with defendants that the court erred in granting SWBG’s motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the contribution cause of action. It is undisputed that SWBG entered into a contract with the Church to provide snowplowing services, which included salting or sanding the plowed areas at the discretion of SWBG. There are “three situations in which a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’ . . . (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties . . . and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . In their verified bill of particulars, defendants relied solely on the first situation.

With respect to the first situation, although SWBG piled the snow in the area of the incline, SWBG established that it did so only at the Church’s direction. Even assuming, arguendo, that such evidence is sufficient to establish that SWBG did not launch a force or instrument of harm, we conclude that defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether SWBG piled the snow at that location on its own initiative and thus whether SWBG launched a force or instrument of harm, i.e., created or exacerbated a dangerous condition … . Chamberlain v Church of the Holy Family 2018 NY Slip Op 02949, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, CONTRACTOR LIABILITY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, CONTRACTOR LIABILITY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (CONTRACTOR LIABILITY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR REFILING A COMPLAINT AFTER DISMISSAL (CPLR 205(A)) BEGAN TO RUN ONLY WHEN THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL WAS EXHAUSTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Fall from Flatbed Truck Was Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Fall Caused by Gravity Acting On Plywood Being Hoisted from the Truck
THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE IN ATTEMPTING TO LOCATE THE DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DOG OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHE HAD HEARD THAT ONE OF HER DOGS NIPPED A BOY IN A PRIOR INCIDENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS OF THE INCIDENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).
Rule Requiring Submission of Order or Judgment for Signature within 60 Days Applies Only When Court Directs that the Proposed Order Be Settled or Submitted for Signature
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS... DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT...