You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEG OF A CLOTHING RACK IN A STORE WAS OPEN AND...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEG OF A CLOTHING RACK IN A STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

In this slip and fall case, the First Department determined there was a question of fact whether the leg of a closing rack in a store was an open and obvious danger:

There is no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger that can be seen by an “observer reasonably using his or her senses” … . “Because of the factual nature of the inquiry, whether a danger is open and obvious is most often a jury question” … . Here, defendant failed to show that the leg of the clothing rack that caused the accident was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. Plaintiff testified that she could only see two racks ahead of her as she pushed her way through clothes when she tripped on the leg from one of the racks and that she did not see it before she fell … . The photographs in the record are insufficient to establish defendant's burden to show that the leg of the clothing rack was an open obvious risk that was readily observable or that the premises was kept in a reasonably safe condition, because the deposition testimony establishes that none of them accurately depict the accident location as it appeared when plaintiff fell … .

Defendant further failed to meet its burden to establish that its employees did not cause or create the condition by placing the store's clothing racks too close together with enough merchandise on them to make it difficult for customers such as plaintiff to be able see the clothing rack's leg sticking out into the aisle. Its sales associate testified that it was defendant's employees who placed the racks at the accident location before plaintiff fell. Stadler v Lord & Taylor LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06861, First Dept 10-16-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEG OF A CLOTHING RACK IN A STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, STORE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEG OF A CLOTHING RACK IN A STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, STORE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEG OF A CLOTHING RACK IN A STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, STORE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE JUDGE DID NOT READ THE JURY NOTE IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE PARTIES AND THE JUDGE’S PARAPHRASE OF THE CONTENTS OMITTED SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF IT; THE FACT THAT THE JURY ANNOUNCED IT HAD REACHED A VERDICT BEFORE THE NOTE WAS CALLED TO THE PARTIES’ ATTENTION DID NOT MATTER; THE MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRED REVERSAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE SENTENCE FOR MANSLAUGHTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BASED UPON THE INTENT TO KILL WHICH IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME; THE SENTENCES FOR MANSLAUGHTER AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONSECUTIVELY; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT).
HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CHARGES OF WHICH SEX OFFENDER WAS ACQUITTED AND CHARGES WHICH WERE DISMISSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
FIREFIGHTER’S RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE NEGLIGENCE SUIT BY A POLICE OFFICER INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED OUT OF HIS VAN INTO A DEPRESSED AREA AROUND A SEWER GRATE, CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE “OUT OF POCKET” DAMAGES WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS.
Application to File Late Notice of Claim Should Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Was Incapacitated for Months and the City Contributed to the Delay by Failing to Respond to Freedom of Information Requests
COVERAGE AT ISSUE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICY EXCLUSION (WHICH WAS THEN ADDED BACK IN BY AN ENDORSEMENT); BECAUSE THE COVERAGE WAS NOT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE POLICY A TIMELY DISCLAIMER WAS REQUIRED.

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

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE AFTER ELEVEN JURORS HAD... ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE...