You are here: / / THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION...

THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a grassy path used to walk from a parking lot to a school building constituted a dangerous condition in this slip and fall case. The path had been cleared of ice and snow by a custodian but the plaintiff described the path as wet and muddy, as opposed to having ice and snow on it. There was a paved walkway to the school and there was testimony the grassy path should not have been cleared of snow:

“As the party seeking summary judgment, defendant bore the initial burden of demonstrating that it had maintained the property in a reasonably safe condition and that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the specific allegedly dangerous condition that resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . To that end, “the scope of a landowner’s duty is measured in terms of foreseeability” … . “Foreseeability of risk is an essential element of a fault-based negligence cause of action because the community deems a person at fault only when the injury-producing occurrence is one that could have been anticipated” … .

Here, the evidence shows that defendant created the path on which plaintiff fell and, therefore, the only valid inference is that it was foreseeable that people would use the path once it had been cleared… . Thus, defendant had a duty to maintain the path in a reasonably safe condition … . However, whether “a dangerous condition exists is generally a question for the jury” … , unless “only a single inference can be drawn from the undisputed facts” … . The deposition testimony established that defendant’s employee created the path, but there was no testimony regarding whether there was any additional maintenance. Also, although plaintiff testified that the path was wet and muddy, she could not recall if there was snow or ice on it. Therefore, a triable question of fact exists as to whether the path constituted a dangerous condition … . Ellis v Lansingburgh Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05011, Third Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))/FORESEEABILITY (SLIP AND FALL, THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
COURTS HAVE ONLY A LIMITED POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATOR’S RULING; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HER AUTHORITY BY ORDERING BACK PAY FOR A REINSTATED COUNTY EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT).
CARRIER’S INABILITY TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CLAIMANT WARRANTED SUSPENSION OF COMPENSATION PAYMENTS.
THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR BODILY INJURY INTENDED OR EXPECTED BY THE INSURED; HERE THE INSURED UNINTENTIONALLY STRUCK COLE, WHO WAS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK UP A FIGHT BETWEEN THE INSURED AND A THIRD PERSON; BECAUSE THE INJURY TO COLE WAS UNINTENDED, THE INSURER WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND THE INSURED IN COLE’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS IN A PRISON AS A VISITOR WHEN THERE WAS A CANINE ALERT TO DRUGS ON HER PERSON, THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH THAT ANY QUESTIONING SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECEDED BY THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE FELT FREE TO LEAVE; BECAUSE THEY WERE CLOSE IN TIME, BOTH HER ORAL STATEMENT AND HER POST-MIRANDA WRITTEN STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
IT CONSULTANT WAS EMPLOYEE.
CLAIMANT DID NOT PROVOKE HER DISCHARGE AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS.
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE, STANDING ALONE. WARRANTED REVERSAL FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
WHETHER TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE IS A STRATEGIC DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT RELINQUISH HIS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL MERELY BY CONFERRING WITH THE DEFENDANT AND AGREEING WITH THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED, IT WAS NOT ERROR TO HANDCUFF DEFENDANT AND TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SEATED NEAR THE DEFENDANT DURING THE TRIAL (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

ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION,... SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING IN THIS HIGH PROFILE CASE SHOULD BE CLOSED...