You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT WAS LIABLE FOR HER BABY’S BRAIN DAMAGE...
,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT WAS LIABLE FOR HER BABY’S BRAIN DAMAGE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S AMBULANCE BROKE DOWN ON THE WAY TO THE HOSPITAL, CAUSING A DELAY IN DELIVERY; DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY, WHICH PROVIDED THE AMBULANCE, WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AND THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF; THE MUNICIPALITY CAN NOT BE HELD LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint against the airport emergency medical service alleging liability for a delay in getting plaintiff to the hospital was properly dismissed. Plaintiff suffered complications giving birth which were alleged to have resulted in the baby suffering brain damage. The ambulance provided by defendant broke down and plaintiff was transferred to another ambulance. The defendant was deemed to have been engaged in a governmental function and there was no special relationship between the plaintiff and the municipal defendant. Therefore the defendant could not be held liable:

“Protecting health and safety is one of municipal government’s most important duties” … , and emergency medical services “have widely been considered one of government’s critical duties” … . …

… [D]efendant could not be held liable to the plaintiffs unless it owed them a special duty … . One way to prove the existence of a special duty is by showing that the defendant assumed a “special relationship” with the plaintiff beyond the duty that is owed to the public generally … . “The plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing the existence of a special relationship by proving all of the following elements: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) the party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … . Of the four factors, the “justifiable reliance” element is particularly “critical” because it “provides the essential causative link between the special duty assumed by the municipality and the alleged injury” … . Halberstam v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2019 NY Slip Op 06479, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

You might also like
COVERAGE FOR CLAIMS ALLEGING PAYMENT OF INADEQUATE WAGES AND RETALIATION FOR BRINGING SUIT PRECLUDED BY EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYMENT-RELATED WRONGFUL ACTS.
NEWS REPORTS CONNECTING PLAINTIFF TO AN ATTEMPTED RAPE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, REPORTS ACCURATELY REFLECTED INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE POLICE.
A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW MUST BE DENIED IF IT IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE OPPOSING PARTY’S CASE, EVEN IF THE MOTION HAS MERIT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE ON THE GROUND CUTTING A TREE, BECAUSE GRAVITY WAS NOT INVOLVED LABOR LAW 240 (1) DID NOT APPLY, BUT BECAUSE CUTTING THE TREE WAS ANCILLARY TO WORK ON A STRUCTURE, LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT AGENCY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY TO PLAINTIFF; HOWEVER IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AGENCY DID NOT HAVE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE POLICY; THEREFORE THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THESE MARITIME LAW ACTIONS STEMMING FROM A FATAL BOATING ACCIDENT, THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF BUOYS (SECOND DEPT).
City Properly Held Liable for Failure to Address Excessive Speeding on Road Where Infant Plaintiff Was Struck—A Proprietary, Not a Governmental, Function Was Involved—The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity Did Not Apply Under the Facts
PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE NOT MET; ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO SHAREHOLDERS OR EMPLOYEES (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WITHIN 120... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SENT A LETTER TO THE INSURED SHORTLY AFTER...