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
US BANK AS THE CURRENT ASSIGNEE OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THIS ACTION TO DISCHARGE AND CANCEL THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS FORSEEABLE THAT A LEAKY ROOF NEEDING REPAIR WOULD COLLAPSE WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the Parties Laid Bare Their Proof and Supreme Court Properly Treated the Motion as One for Summary Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 3212 Seeking Dismissal of the Complaint as Time-Barred
THE BASES FOR THE UPWARD DEPARTURE WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES; UPWARD DEPARTURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
NAMING THE PRESIDENT OF AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION AS A DEFENDANT PROPERLY JOINED THE ASSOCIATION.
FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
APPELLATE COUNSEL’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WAS DEFICIENT, NEW APPELLATE COUNSEL ASSIGNED (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...