You are here: / / A DEFECT IN THE TOP STEP OF A STAIRWAY WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED THE TRIP...
,

A DEFECT IN THE TOP STEP OF A STAIRWAY WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED THE TRIP AND FALL; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE COURT NOTED THAT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION MAY STILL BE DANGEROUS AND THE QUESTION IS USUALLY FOR A JURY TO DECIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department,, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this stairway trip and fall case should not have been granted. The court noted that a condition which is open and obvious may still be dangerous. Here it was alleged a defect on the edge of the top step caused the fall:

While there is “no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous” … , when a dangerous condition exists on the premises, proof that the dangerous condition is open and obvious “does not preclude a finding of liability against an owner for failure to maintain property in a safe condition” … . “The determination of whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case” … . “The issue of whether a condition is open and obvious and not inherently dangerous is case-specific, and usually a question of fact for a jury” … .

Here, the defendants’ submissions, including photographs of the alleged defect, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the allegedly defective condition was open and obvious … . While the plaintiff testified at her deposition that she had previously used the stairway and observed the allegedly defective condition, she also testified that she did not inspect the condition each time that she had used the stairway and that she had not noticed that the condition had worsened since she last observed it. Johnson v 1451 Assoc., L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 01537, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: An open and obvious condition can still be a dangerous condition. Whether a condition is open and obvious and whether it is inherently dangerous are usually fact-specific questions for a jury.

 

You might also like
THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE REDUCTION IN SEWER CHARGES BUT WAS NOT NAMED AS A RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION; THE WATER BOARD MUST BE ADDED AS A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
HERE NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO THE TOWN FOR THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE AND GATE WAS MAILED TO PETITIONER; PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION THE NOTICE ARRIVED FIVE DAYS AFTER IT WAS MAILED; THEREFORE PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS ACTION BY A PROPERTY OWNER WHO LOST THE PROPERTY TO FORECLOSURE: (1) THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKERS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION; AND (2) THE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF REAL PROPERTY LAW 441-C, AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Forum Selection Clause in a “Release of Liability” Form Is Enforceable
HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Despite Absence of Written Notice of the Dangerous Condition, There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Village Created the Dangerous Condition by Its Snow-Removal/Whether the Condition Was Open and Obvious Speaks Only to Comparative Negligence
PURSUANT TO THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LAW THE DEFENDANT BEER IMPORTER IS OBLIGATED TO HONOR THE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF AND THE PRIOR BEER IMPORTER (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ATTIC FLOOR AND WAS ENTITLED... THE REAR-DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT; HERE THERE...