You are here: / / DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY...
,

DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant town did not demonstrate the hump over which plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell was open and obvious. Therefore the town’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The Town had installed a drain to keep water off this particular ballfield and covered the drain with asphalt, creating a hump. This hump extended to the area between the players’ benches and the entrance to the ballfield on the third base side. The injured plaintiff was attempting to move through the entrance on the third base side when he tripped and fell over the hump. …

A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition … . There is, however, no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property so as to give rise to liability depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of [his or her] senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … .

Here, the Town failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition of the hump was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous given the surrounding circumstances at the time of the accident … . In support of the motion, the Town submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the testimony of the injured plaintiff at his hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and at his deposition. The injured plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident, the hump was completely covered with dirt and sand and players were standing around it, thus obscuring his view of the hump. Since the Town failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, the burden never shifted to the plaintiffs to submit evidence sufficient to raise triable issues of fact … . Dillon v Town of Smithtown, 2018 NY Slip Op 07289, Second Dept 10-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
New Trial Required Because State’s Experts Testified Based On Hearsay Not Demonstrated to Have Been Reliable
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR’S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL’S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT).
Right to Call and Question Witnesses.
PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SEVERE ABUSE FINDING COULD ONLY BE MADE AGAINST A LEGAL PARENT, PRESUMPTION MOTHER’S HUSBAND IS THE FATHER OF THE CHILDREN WAS REBUTTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT; HERE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY BUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE REMAINED VIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
NO ONE AT THE DEFENDANT HEALTH CLUB WHEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK WAS CERTIFIED TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY AID AND THE EMPLOYEE DELAYED CALLING 911; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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

STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD... PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK...