You are here: / / OWNERS OF A RESTAURANT-BAR NOT LIABLE FOR AN ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF IN THE...

OWNERS OF A RESTAURANT-BAR NOT LIABLE FOR AN ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF IN THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the owners of a restaurant/bar were not liable for an attack on plaintiff int the adjacent parking lot:

“Landowners, as a general rule, have a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to patrons on their property” … . “However, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . “Thus, the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the attack on the plaintiff was unforeseeable and unexpected … . Oblatore v 67 W. Main St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00892, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

You might also like
Testimony by the Vehicle Owner that His Vehicle Was “Missing” at the Time of the Accident Did Not Overcome the Statutory Presumption the Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent at the Time of the Accident
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES, CAN ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CORPORATION 2ND DEPT.
Plea Colloquy Raised Concerns Requiring Further Inquiry Re: Defendant’s Mental Health
Family Court Award of Sole Custody to Mother Reversed, Sole Custody Awarded to Father
ALTHOUGH THE BROKER MAY HAVE REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF BE ADDED TO THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE BROKER ALLEGEDLY DID NOT VERIFY THE COVERAGE WAS IN PLACE BEFORE ERRONEOUSLY REPRESENTING TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT IT WAS INSURED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER BREACHED A COMMON-LAW OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
Dismissal Due to People’s Failure to Timely Indict Is Not a Termination in Favor of the Accused Which Will Support a Malicious Prosecution Cause of Action
Plaintiff’s Failure to Replace Manhole Cover Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injury
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (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

FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT... PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF UNSECURED PLYWOOD WHICH FELL, PLAINTIFF’S...