You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN HER FOOT BECAME ENTANGLED IN CORDS OR TUBES CONNECTED...

PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN HER FOOT BECAME ENTANGLED IN CORDS OR TUBES CONNECTED TO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT IN A HOSPITAL ROOM; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CORDS OR TUBES WERE OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tubes or cords attached to medical equipment in a neurologic intensive care unit which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall were not demonstrated to be “open and obvious and not inherently dangerous:”

“While a possessor of real property has a duty to maintain that property in a reasonably safe condition, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” … . “A condition is open and obvious if it is readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, given the conditions at the time of the accident” … . Moreover, “[a] condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . The question of whether a condition is open and obvious is usually a question of fact properly resolved by a jury … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged condition of the tubes or cords was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the circumstances surrounding the accident … . Butler v NYU Winthrop Hosp., 2024 NY Slip Op 01289, Second Dept 3-13-24\

Practice Point: Whether a condition is open and obvious and not inherently dangerous is usually a question for the jury. Here, in this slip and fall case, there was a question of fact whether cords or tubes connected to medical equipment constituted an open and obvious condition which was not inherently dangerous.

 

You might also like
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROOF OF A GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION POLICY DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD LIABLE FOR BITE BY TENANT’S DOG.
INMATE PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL A PRISON OFFICER AS A WITNESS TO DETERMINE THE BASIS OF THE OFFICER’S KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON, DETERMINATION ANNULLED BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
CITY (NYC), NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER PURSUANT TO RULES OF CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE REPRESENTATION THAT THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING WHEN, IN FACT, IT WAS A THREE-FAMILY DWELLING, WAS A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION; COVERAGE FOR FIRE DAMAGE PROPERLY DISCLAIMED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE APPELLANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING WITHOUT COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION MATTER, ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED.
Criteria for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Finding a Verdict to be Against the Weight of the Evidence Explained

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 SLIP AND FALL CASE, STEPS WHICH DO NOT HAVE UNIFORM RISER HEIGHTS COULD... EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S STAIRWAY FALL RESULTED FROM A MISSTEP, EVIDENCE THAT...