You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION–A STEEP EMBANKMENT...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION–A STEEP EMBANKMENT NEXT TO A GRASSY WALKWAY–SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE SAFE BY THE INSTALLATION OF A RAILING OR BARRIER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a dissent, determined the defendant property owner’s (COU’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. COU owned a campground for developmentally disabled persons. Plaintiff, a developmentally disabled adult, slipped on a narrow grassy walkway and fell down the adjacent steep embankment, striking his head on one of the rocks at the bottom. The First Department held there were questions of fact whether the accident was foreseeable and whether the area should have been made safe with a barrier or handrail:

… [A]n issue of fact does exist as to whether COU violated its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition by failing to erect a railing or barrier along the walkway. “A landowner must act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining [its] property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . Indeed, “the duty of the owner or occupier will vary with the likelihood of plaintiff’s presence at the particular time and place of the injury. While [plaintiff’s] status is no longer determinative, considerations of who plaintiff is and what [his or her] purpose is upon the land are factors which, if known, may be included in arriving at what would be reasonable care under the circumstances” … .

… [A] landowner or occupier “has a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents which might foreseeably occur as the result of dangerous terrain on its property by posting warning signs or otherwise neutralizing dangerous conditions” … . “[E]ven if a hazard qualifies as ‘open and obvious’ as a matter of law, that characteristic merely eliminates the property owner’s duty to warn of the hazard, but does not eliminate the broader duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . “A landlord’s duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition … is not satisfied by permitting a highly dangerous — but correctible — condition to remain, simply because the dangerous condition is obvious” … . Aberger v Camp Loyaltown, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 01188, First Dept 2-25-21

 

You might also like
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS REQUIRING A SHUTDOWN AND REOPENING RESTRICTIONS DID NOT TERMINATE PLAINTIFF RETAIL STORE’S LEASE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE DOCTRINES OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE AND IMPOSSIBILITY DO NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
The “Following the Settlements” Doctrine and “Following Form” Clauses as They Apply to Reinsurers Discussed in Some Depth
PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE BY ALLEGING THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AGAINST THE WISHES OF DECEDENT AND DECEDENT’S HEALTH-CARE AGENTS PROLONGED DECEDENT’S PAIN AND SUFFERING; THE “WRONGFUL LIFE” LINE OF CASES DOES NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER.
THE NYPD’S FAILURE TO TIMELY COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST WARRANTED THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PETITIONER; RESPONDENT NYPD’S ABANDONING AN ISSUE IN A PRIOR APPEAL PRECLUDED APPELLATE REVIEW OF THAT ISSUE IN A SUBSEQUENT APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON A LADDER WHEN THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER INJURED HIM, THE LADDER DID NOT FAIL AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER PRESENTED A SAFETY ISSUE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241(6) AND THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE EVEN IF THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION CHALLENGING TERMINATION OF SECTION 8 RENT-SUBSIDY BENEFITS STARTS WHEN THE TENANT BECOMES AWARE OF THE TERMINATION; THE PETITION WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD HIM HE “MOST LIKELY” WOULD BE DEPORTED WHEN DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA; ONE DISSENT (FIRST 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

ALLEGED ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE OVER $21 MILLION... PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF...