You are here: / / WHEN THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE ARRIVED TO CLEAN THE TANK, THE OPENING...
,

WHEN THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE ARRIVED TO CLEAN THE TANK, THE OPENING WAS COVERED ONLY BY CARDBOARD; AFTER FINISHING THE WORK, THE EMPLOYEE REPLACED THE CARDBOARD COVER; PLAINTIFF SUBSEQUENTLY STEPPED ON THE CARDBOARD AND FELL INTO THE TANK; THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WITHIN THE MEANING OF ESPINAL, 98 NY2D 140 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contractor’s (A&L’s) employee did not launch an instrument of harm by leaving the accident site as it was when the employee arrived to clean a sewage tank, the opening of which was covered only by cardboard. Plaintiff stepped on the cardboard and fell into the tank:

Supreme Court should have granted A&L summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it. Plaintiff was not a party to A&L’s contract to clean the sewage tank. Plaintiff argues that A&L may nevertheless be liable in tort because it failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its contractual duties and thereby launched a force or instrument of harm (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). However, this exception to the general rule that a contractual obligation does not give rise to tort liability to a third party is inapplicable where “the breach of contract consists merely in withholding a benefit . . . where inaction is at most a refusal to become an instrument for good” … . Thus, a defendant who neglects to make the accident site “safer — as opposed to less safe — than it was before” the defendant came upon the site is not liable pursuant to the Espinal exception … . …

By simply replacing the cardboard box cover already in place over the sewage tank after he completed his work, A&L’s employee returned the site to the condition in which he originally found it. Thus, he neglected to make the area safer, but did not affirmatively make the area less safe than it was when he first came upon it … . That A&L’s employee did not report the cardboard is immaterial because a third-party contractor’s awareness of a condition and failure to warn does not amount to launching an instrument of harm … . Skeete v Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05511, First Dept 10-4-22

Practice Point: A contractor will be liable to an injured person who is not a party to the contract if the contractor launches an instrument of harm which causes the injury. Here the contractor’s employee left the accident scene as it was before the employee started the job, replacing the cardboard which covered the opening to the tank which the employee cleaned. The contractor’s employee did not launch an instrument of harm by replacing the cardboard cover. The contractor was not liable to the plaintiff who stepped on the cardboard and fell into the tank.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS INVALID BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQURY; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND AUTO STRIPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT INLCUDE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF A PATTERN OF DELAY; THEREFORE THE “FAILURE TO PROSECUTE” EXCEPTION IN CPLR 205 (A) DID NOT APPLY; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION BROUGHT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK RESIDENT AND A SHAREHOLDER IN DEFENDANT LONDON CORPORATION, ALLEGED DEFENDANT WRONGFULLY FAILED TO PAY DIVIDENDS; THE LONDON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION ALLEGING WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF A PROBATIONARY CORRECTIONS OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT UPON THE TERMINATION OF TREATMENT CULMINATING IN THE IMPLANTATION OF A FERTILIZED DONOR EGG.
The Purchasers’ Purported Retraction of an Earlier Repudiation of the Purchase Contract Was Not “Bona Fide” Because It Imposed a Condition for the Retraction Which Was Not Contemplated by the Purchase Contract—Sellers Entitled to Keep $365,000 Downpayment Based Upon Purchasers’ Failure to Close
Language in the Arbitration Agreement Supported the Applicability of the New York Law Reserving the Determination of a Statute of Limitations Defense to the Court, Even Though the Controlling Federal Arbitration Act Presumptively Reserves the Determination of a Statute of Limitations Defense to the Arbitrator

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

APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE A MOTION ALERTING THE... IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING THE...