QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the general contractor’s (Harbour’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged that Harbour removed a tank and exposed a dangerous opening in a metal plate. Plaintiff alleged, while working at the site, he stepped backwards into the opening and fell, hitting his head on the concrete floor. The First Department held there was a question of fact whether Harbour launched an instrument of harm by not taking remedial measures to make the area safe after removing the tank. The fact that the opening was obvious and plaintiff knew about it did not warrant summary judgment in favor of the defendants:

Although both defendants argue that the exposed opening in the metal plate was open, obvious, readily observable and known to plaintiff, a property owner has a nondelegable duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, taking into account the forseeability of injury to others … . Moreover, although a defect or hazard may be discernable, this does not end the analysis, or compel a determination in favor of the property owner … . Plaintiff’s awareness of a dangerous condition does not negate a duty to warn of the hazard, but only goes to the issue of comparative negligence … . Given the exposed opening’s proximity to equipment that required service, the circumstances of plaintiff’s accident present an issue of fact of not only whether the condition was open and obvious, but also whether it was inherently dangerous… . Some hazards, although discernable, may be hazardous because of their nature and location … . Defendants did not establish that the exposed opening – given its location in the floor near other mechanical equipment in the pump room – was not only open and obvious, but that there was no duty to warn, and that the condition was not inherently dangerous … .

A contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a noncontracting third party (Espinal 98 NY2d at 138]). One exception to this broad rule is where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, “launche[s] a force or instrument of harm” (Espinal at 140). We depart from the dissent in finding that Harbour failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not owe plaintiff a duty of care and that it did not negligently cause, create or exacerbate a dangerous condition. Farrugia v 1440 Broadway Assoc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05222, First Dept 7-12-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (TORT LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))