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 RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT RE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA; THE PRECISE NATURE OF COUNSEL’S ADVICE WAS NOT IN THE RECORD; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED.
ALTHOUGH THE PIPE WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION INHERENT IN THE WORK, IT WAS AN AVOIDABLE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THERE REMAIN QUESTIONS ABOUT MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE THE TRIPPING HAZARD (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)
THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS “COMPRESSION OF THE DIAPHRAGM” (BY KNEELING, SITTING OR STANDING ON A PERSON) WHEN EFFECTING AN ARREST IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN TWO WORKERS LOST CONTROL OF A HEAVY BEAM THEY WERE LOWERING TO THE GROUND ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; EXPERT OPINION THAT NO SAFETY DEVICES WERE NECESSARY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.
DESPITE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION EXCLUDING RESPONDENT FROM THE HOME, THE PETITIONER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE RESPONDENT WAS A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD; PEITIONER DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENT HAD NEGLECTED THE CHILD BY COMMITTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE CHILD’S PRESENCE (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...