You are here: / / INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY...
,

INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO REPLACED THE WATER HEATER MAY BE LIABLE; THE FOSTER-CARE SERVICE WHICH PLACED H.M. IN THE HOME, HOWEVER, COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the property owner could be liable for injury to a child, H.M. caused by hot water in the shower. The defendant placement service (Leake) had placed H,M. in the foster care of defendant Butler who lived in a home owned by Alicea. Butler had turned on the shower and was picking up H.M.’s clothes when H.M. climbed into the tub. There was a question of fact whether the property owner, Alicea, was liable because of conflicting expert evidence about the danger posed by the temperature of the water. However, the incident was not foreseeable from the perspective of the placement agency (Leake). Therefore, Leake’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

… [T]here is an issue of fact as to whether [Alicea] created the dangerous hot water temperature when he replaced the home’s hot water heater prior to the accident. …

Leake demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the negligent supervision claim against it because it established that it did not have “sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury,” and “[t]he scalding hot bath water was an intervening act or event that is divorced from and not the foreseeable risk associated with. . .defendant’s alleged negligence” … . The excessively hot water was not the foreseeable risk associated with Leake’s alleged negligence in placing more than five children in the home, and the momentary inattention of Butler was not an act that should have been foreseeable by Leake in the exercise of reasonable care … . H.M. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 03376, First Dept 5-27-21

 

You might also like
ORDINANCE OR LAW ENDORSEMENT DID NOT REQUIRE INSURER TO PAY FOR REMEDIATION OF CODE VIOLATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE COVERED DAMAGE.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OWNERS-OCCUPIERS OF A BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE LIABLE FOR A FALLING OBJECT INJURY TO A SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN (FIRST DEPT).
WITHOUT PROOF DEFENDANT USED, ATTEMPTED TO USE, OR THREATENED TO USE THE BOX CUTTER FOUND IN HIS POCKET, THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BOX CUTTER MET THE DEFINITION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (FIRST DEPT)
HERE THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE TEN-DAY’S NOTICE THEY WERE SEEKING A HIGHER SORA RISK LEVEL THAN THAT RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD WARRANTED A REDUCTION FROM LEVEL THREE TO TWO; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REPLY TO THE LATE NOTICE DID NOT WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
Statement Protected by “Common Interest Privilege,” Tortious Interference Action Can Only Be Brought Against a Stranger to the Contract
TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN NOT LETTING THE POSSESSION-OF-A-BB-GUN COUNT GO TO THE JURY BECAUSE THE COUNT COULD CONFUSE THE JURY AND LEAD TO A COMPROMISE VERDICT, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A 9 MM HANDGUN. 
PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THAT, ‘BUT FOR’ THE ATTORNEYS’ WITHDRAWAL OF AN APPEAL, PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE PREVAILED AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT (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

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE FACED A 45-YEAR SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL WHEN THE ACTUAL SENTENCE... WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT A CAUSE OF ACTION...