You are here: / / THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR;...
, ,

THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER THE HOSE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO DELIVER OIL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner, Goldner, was not liable for the actions of defendant independent contractor, UMEC, because Goldner did not oversee UMEC’s work and, based upon the protective measures taken by UMEC in the past, the incident was not foreseeable. UMEC delivered oil to Goldner and plaintiff allegedly tripped over the hose which ran across the sidewalk. In the past UMEC had set up safety measures to protect pedestrians from the tripping hazard:

“Generally, a party that hires an independent contractor cannot be held liable for the negligence of that independent contractor” … . “The primary justification for this rule is that one who employs an independent contractor has no right to control the manner in which the work is to be done and thus, the risk of loss is more sensibly placed on the contractor” … . There are various exceptions to this general rule, including “(1) [n]egligence of the employer in selecting, instructing, or supervising the contractor”; (2) “[n]on-delegable duties of the employer, arising out of some relation toward the public or the particular plaintiff”; and (3) “[w]ork which is specially, peculiarly, or inherently dangerous” … .

Under the circumstances presented, we disagree with the motion court’s finding that triable issues of fact exist as to whether Goldner may be liable for the work of an independent contractor where danger is readily foreseeable. The deposition testimony shows that Goldner did not supervise, monitor, or control UMEC when the oil would be delivered. The evidence also shows that UMEC had a prior history of consistently placing safety measures to prevent a pedestrian from tripping over the oil hose. In light of the preexisting precautions established by UMEC and lack of any complaints from prior oil deliveries, Goldner was not placed on notice of the existence of a dangerous condition … . Here, the danger arose “because of the negligence of the independent contractor or [its] employees, which negligence [was] collateral to the work and which [was] not reasonably to be expected” … . Linder v United Metro Energy Servs. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 02250, First Dept 4-13-21

 

You might also like
NONMONETARY SETTLEMENT OF A SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTION SUIT APPROVED, NEW ANALYTICAL CRITERIA ANNOUNCED.
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER PLAINTIFF’S POST-NOTE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR THE NONPARTY WITNESS WAS QUASHED, PLAINTIFF OBTAINED A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT FROM THE NONPARTY WITNESS; OBTAINING THE STATEMENT WAS A PROPER METHOD OF “INFORMAL DISCOVERY” (FIRST DEPT).
THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES.
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, HEAVY ROLL OF WIRE FELL BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED IN A MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT DURING RECREATIONAL USE OF A CITY PARKING LOT, CITY NOT LIABLE PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT).
No Justification for Handcuffing Defendant/Handcuffing Constituted an Arrest Before Officer Had Probable Cause to Arrest
FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.

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

IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE... REJECTING THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CRITICISM OF THE 1ST DEPARTMENT’S...