You are here: / / WOOD WHICH HAD FALLEN TO THE GROUND FROM A SPLIT RAIL FENCE IS AN OPEN...

WOOD WHICH HAD FALLEN TO THE GROUND FROM A SPLIT RAIL FENCE IS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION WHICH IS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined wood from a split rail fence which had fallen to the ground was open and obvious and therefore not actionable in this slip and fall case:

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 … . Here, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the wood on the ground was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Swinney v Nassau County, 2020 NY Slip Op 00169, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

You might also like
INSURER’S FRAUDULENT INCORPORATION DEFENSE TO ITS REFUSAL TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO A CORPORATION RUN BY NON-PHYSICIANS WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE JURY, DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH NON-PARTIES INVOKED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN READ TO THE JURY.
Burden of Proof for Relocation with Child Not Met
NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED.
THE FEDERAL CRIME WHICH WAS USED TO ENHANCE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK; DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY ADJUDICATION VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
Statements at Issue Were Statements of Opinion Directly Linked to the Plaintiff’s Writings—Defamation Complaint Properly Dismissed
REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK POSTED ON YELP WAS OPINION, NOT ACTIONABLE LIBEL.
Breach of Covenant of Good Faith (Settlement) Can Give Rise to Consequential Damages (Loss of Earnings) Even Where Policy Excludes Loss of Earnings with Respect to the Events Covered by the Policy
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRIST ALLEGED HE CALLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO TELL HER SHE SHOULD SEE ANOTHER PSYCHIATRIST, THE NEXT SCHEDULED APPOINTMENT WITH DEFENDANT WAS NOT CANCELLED; THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED AND RENDERED THE ACTION TIMELY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT 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

DEFENDANT CLEANING SERVICE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED EVIDENCE WHICH CREATED A QUESTION... JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION...