You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined there were questions of fact about whether a cluttered area at a day care center was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s falling and whether a bicycle ridden by a three-year-old was a dangerous instrument requiring supervision by the operator of the day care center. The plaintiff had picked up her infant when her three-year-old ran into her with the bicycle. Plaintiff alleged that, had the area not been cluttered with toys and furniture, she could have avoided falling. The dissenters argued that the bicycle was not a dangerous instrument and the negligent supervision cause of action failed as a matter of law:

Here, the actions of the three-year-old child were unquestionably the precipitating factor in plaintiff’s accident. However, plaintiff explained that, after being struck by the bicycle, she attempted to regain her balance but was unable to because she was “trapped” between a table and an ottoman and could not take a step in any direction without tripping on one of the various objects scattered about the porch. She further averred that, had the floor not been so cluttered with toys, objects and furniture, she would have been able to regain her balance before falling. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every favorable inference that may be drawn therefrom … , we find a triable issue of fact as to whether the condition of the porch was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . …

As the Court of Appeals has explained, “[c]hildren might, at various points in their development, be permitted, and properly so, to use bicycles, lawn mowers, power tools, motorcycles, or automobiles, all of which are, in some contingencies, ‘dangerous instruments'” … . “[T]he determination of whether a particular instrument is dangerous ‘depends upon the nature and complexity of the allegedly dangerous instrument, the age, intelligence and experience of the child, and his [or her] proficiency with the instrument'”… . Pineiro v Rush, 2018 NY Slip Op 04994, Third Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION  (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/BICYCLES (DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (DAY CARE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/DAY CARE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Family Court Properly Issued an Order of Protection Against the 13-Year-Old Respondent In Favor of Petitioner’s 13-Year-Old Daughter Pursuant to Family Court Act 812—Respondent and Daughter Had Been Boyfriend-Girlfriend and Had Been Intimate But They Were Not Members of the Same Family or Household and Never Lived Together—Respondent Fit Within the Expanded Definition of “Member of the Same Family or Household” As the Phrase Is Used In Family Court Act 812, Thereby Providing Family Court with Jurisdiction Over the Proceedings
CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRATED.
IN THIS OIL SPILL CLEAN UP SUIT AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER BROUGHT UNDER THE NAVIGATION LAW, THERE IS NO STATUTE PROHIBITING THE STATE FROM SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR FUNDS EXPENDED FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM FUND PURSUANT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A HEAT PUMP SYSTEM DRAWS HEAT FROM SOLAR ENERGY STORED IN THE GROUND, IT IS NOT A QUALIFIED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TAX LAW FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR A $5000 TAX CREDIT (THIRD DEPT).
No Employer-Employee Relationship—Agency Places Waiters and Bartenders with Clients for Catered Functions
THE BRAKES FAILED ON A LIMOUSINE OWNED BY PETITIONER AND 20 PEOPLE DIED; PETITIONER PLED TO 20 COUNTS OF CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND, PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT, WAS SENTENCED TO PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE; BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL DEFECT IN THE SENTENCE, PETITIONER APPEARED FOR RESENTENCING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE WHO DECIDED TO IMPOSE PRISON TIME; PETITIONER WITHDREW HIS PLEA, THE MATTER WAS SET FOR TRIAL AND PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING TO REINSTATE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE; THE PETITION WAS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES.
PETITIONER, WHO WAS URINATING WHEN A FEMALE CORRECTION OFFICER PASSED HIS CELL, WAS NOT GUILTY OF LEWD CONDUCT (THIRD 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

A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION... BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304...