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
ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER WAIVED ITS OWN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION, THE EMPLOYER RAISED SPECIFIC, SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMANT’S ORTHOPEDIST’S PERMANENCY FINDINGS, INCLUDING THE ALLEGATIONS THE ORTHOPEDIST DID NOT COMPLETELY REVIEW THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND DID NOT FOLLOW THE RELEVANT GUIDELINES; THE BOARD’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTIONS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND REMITTAL (THIRD DEPT).
A CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ORDERED PETITIONER-TENANT TO VACATE HER APARTMENT AFTER FINDING SOME WINDOWS DID NOT OPEN; PENDING THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE CITY AMENDED THE CODE TO ALLOW A HEARING IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE (RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER); THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WAS AN AGENT OF THE STATE AND PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND COUNSEL FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (THIRD DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY AND NEGLECT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM AN INCIDENT DURING A BRIEF VISIT TO TENNESSEE (THIRD DEPT). ​
Bank’s Failure to Strictly Comply With the Filing Deadline in RPAPL 1306 Required Dismissal of the Complaint Seeking Foreclosure
HERE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) AFTER HE HAD BEEN INDICTED; THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS INVALID AND THE SCI WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR IS JURISDICTIONAL AND NEED NOT BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT).
Flight Crew Member Deemed an Employee of a Service Which Provides Flight Crews for Corporate Clients
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, HE DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL; COUNSEL DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENDANT AND DID NOT PRESENT A DEFENSE; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
TRESPASS AND NUISANCE ACTIONS BASED UPON WATER RUNOFF FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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 © 2025 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...