You are here: / / MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY BICYCLE-RIDING IN...
, ,

MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY BICYCLE-RIDING IN PUBLIC PARK, DESPITE REGULATIONS PROHIBITING BICYCLE-RIDING; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HIRED TO CARE FOR THE CHILD WHO STRUCK INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CHILD’S FATHER (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR) OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CARE-GIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN SUPERVISING THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined: (1) the municipal defendants were not liable for injuries to infant plaintiff caused when infant plaintiff was struck by another child (defendant Tully’s son) riding a bicycle in a municipal park where bicycle-riding was prohibited; (2) there was a question of fact whether defendant Bhawanie, who was employed by defendant Tully to care for Tully’s son, was defendant Tully’s employee or an independent contractor; (3) there were questions of fact whether Bhawanie was negligent:

… “[B]icycle riding in a playground . . . constitutes neither an ultrahazardous nor a criminal activity” … . … [T]he municipal defendants are not accountable to the infant plaintiff for their alleged failure to enforce their regulations prohibiting bicycle riding in the playground, since the promulgation and enforcement of such regulations do not constitute the assumption of a special relationship with the infant plaintiff such that a special duty was owed to him … . …

… [T]he evidence demonstrated that Bhawanie had worked for Tully and his wife continuously from 2007 through 2016, Tully and his wife dictated Bhawanie’s work schedule, and Bhawanie had to receive permission from Tully and his wife before engaging in certain activities with their children. Under the circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists on the issue of whether Bhawanie was an employee of Tully, such that vicarious liability may be imposed, or whether she was an independent contractor. …

“While a person caring for entrusted children is not cast in the role of an insurer, such an individual is obliged to provide adequate supervision and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately resulting from the negligent failure to do so” … . C.B. v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 2021 NY Slip Op 03158, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

You might also like
Product Warranty Does Not Extend Statute of Limitations
IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY AN ADA ABOUT GRAND JURY PROCEDURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, COUPLED WITH IMPROPER REFERENCES TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION, REQUIRED REVERSAL.
USE OF PIER 55 FOR REVENUE-GENERATING EVENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE.
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT.
PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER’S FALL GETTING OUT OF A POLICE CAR WAS NOT AN UNEXPECTED ACCIDENT OR DUE TO A RISK INHERENT IN THE JOB; PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Should Be Dismissed When It Is the Same as the Breach of Contract Claim
THREE-YEAR TIME LIMIT FOR STARTING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS AFTER A COURT CHALLENGE STARTS TO RUN WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSES THE APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION.
Defendant Entitled to Suppression Hearing Where People Provided No Information About How Defendant Came to the Attention of Law Enforcement Personnel

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

THE DESIGNATING PETITION WAS PERMEATED BY FRAUD AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED... APPELLANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING; APPELLANT’S...