You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED TO THE FLOOR BY A SHOPPING CART PUSHED BY ANOTHER...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED TO THE FLOOR BY A SHOPPING CART PUSHED BY ANOTHER STORE CUSTOMER; THE DEFENDANT STORE DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MONITOR CUSTOMERS’ USE OF SHOPPING CARTS; ISSUE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff was knocked to the floor by a shopping cart pushed by another customer in the defendant’s store. Apparently the customer had piled items high in the cart and couldn’t see ahead of it. The court noted that, although defendant raised the “no duty to monitor customers” issue for the first time on appeal, it could be considered because it raises an issue of law than could not have been avoided by the court below:

The defendant contends that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it because it did not have a duty to control the conduct of the customer who struck Novak with the shopping cart. Although the defendant has raised this contention for the first time on appeal, “we may consider it . . . because the existence of a duty presents a question of law which could not have been avoided if brought to the Supreme Court’s attention at the proper juncture”… .

“Store owners are charged with the duty of keeping their premises in a reasonably safe condition for the benefit of their customers” … . “[T]his duty may extend to controlling the conduct of third persons who frequent or use the property, at least under some circumstances” … . “This duty is, however, not limitless” … . “[A]n owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such persons and is reasonably aware of the need for such control” … .

Here, the plaintiff contends that the defendant was negligent in failing to monitor its customers’ use of the U-boat shopping carts and, more specifically, in failing to require customers to refrain from loading the carts over a certain height. However, the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty to protect her from the other customer’s negligent use of the U-boat shopping cart because it did not have control over that customer’s actions … . Aupperlee v Restaurant Depot, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08548, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

You might also like
TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION WHICH RESULTED IN THE FORMATION OF ICE, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PAROLE BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER PETITIONER’S YOUTH AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSES AND APPEARS TO HAVE DENIED PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE SOLELY BASED ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSES, DE NOVO INTERVIEW IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT PANEL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
County Court Should Not Have Dismissed the Indictment on a Ground Not Raised by the Defendant Without Giving the People the Opportunity to Address the Issue
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT INVESTIGATE ALIBI EVIDENCE, DID NOT OBJECT TO EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BEEN RULED OFF LIMITS, AND DID NOT IMPEACH THE COMPLAINANT WITH INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION OF A TEACHER’S AIDE AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND THE COW PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING FELL, WITH THE COW LANDING ON PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ANIMAL’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS THE SLIPPERY CONDITION OF THE FLOOR, NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE COW (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER A DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AFFECTED PLAINTIFF’S PROGNOSIS IS USUALLY A JURY QUESTION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO IS MILDLY AUTISTIC, DEMONSTRATED (1) HE IS NOT DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (SCPA) ARTICLE 17-A AND (2) HE UNDERSTANDS AND IS ABLE TO MANAGE HIS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS; THE PETITION TO DISSOLVE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS PROPERTY 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PARKER WARNINGS WERE INADEQUATE BUT THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL;... PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IN A CAR WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY, WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY...