You are here: / / HERE AN INDEPENDENT CLEANING CONTRACTOR APPARENTLY CREATED A DANGEROUS...
,

HERE AN INDEPENDENT CLEANING CONTRACTOR APPARENTLY CREATED A DANGEROUS FLOOR CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF; ALTHOUGH THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE, MARSHALLS, THE RETAIL STORE WHERE THE INJURY OCCURRED, COULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE BECAUSE MARSHALLS HAS A NONDELGABLE DUTY TO KEEP THE PUBLIC AREAS OF ITS STORE SAFE; WHETEHER MARSHALLS HAD NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IS NOT AN ISSUE WHERE VICARIOUS LIABILITY MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that Marshall’s had a nondelegable duty to keep the public area of its store safe. The underlying fact of the case are not described but plaintiff was apparently injured because of the negligence of defendant cleaning subcontractor. The defendant which hired the subcontractor was not liable because the subcontractor was retained as an independent contractor. But the store was liable for the subcontractor’s negligence based upon its nondelegable duty to keep public areas safe (notice of the dangerous condition is not an issue):

The general rule is that a party who retains an independent contractor is not liable for that contractor’s negligent acts … . The record establishes that neither USM [the company which hired the independent contractor] nor Marshalls exercised control over how [the independent contractor] performed its cleaning tasks at the Marshalls store where plaintiff was injured, and that USM was not even present at the location at the time of the accident. * * *

… [T]he court should not have granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against Marshalls, which had a nondelegable duty to maintain the public area of its store in a reasonably safe condition. Therefore, Marshalls can be held vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of the subcontractor that caused the floor to become unsafe … . In light of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to consider whether Marshalls established lack of notice of the hazardous condition. Jones v Marshalls, 2026 NY Slip Op 00087, First Dept 1-13-26

Practice Point: Here a retail store, Marshall’s could be vicariously liable for a slip and fall caused by the negligence of an independent cleaning contractor. The store has a nondelegable duty to keep its public areas safe. The question whether Marshall’s had notice of the dangerous condition is irrelevant where liability is vicarious. [Why is a retail store’s notice of the dangerous condition a crucial issue where no independent contractor is involved, but irrelevant when the cleaning is done by an independent contractor?]

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY BASIS FOR IN PERSONAM OR IN REM JURISDICTION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ALBANIAN MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 OF THE CPLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE HOMEOWNER IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, FENCE AND GATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL USE OF THE SIDEWALK BY THE HOMEOWNER (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HIS ANSWER TO ASSERT A GRAVES AMENDMENT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (AVAILABLE TO THE LESSOR OF A VEHICLE); PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE LATENESS OF THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Plaintiff Estopped from Bringing State Retaliation Claim/Issue Decided by District Court Which Dismissed Plaintiff’s Federal Title VII Constructive Discharge Claim
DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR REFORMATION OF A CONTRACT BASED ON A SCRIVENER’S ERROR HAD PASSED; THE CLEAR ERROR PRODUCED AN ABSURD RESULT WHICH CANNOT BE ADOPTED OR CONDONED BY THE COURT (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE INSURER’S NEARLY TWO-MONTH DELAY BEFORE DISCLAIMING COVERAGE RENDERED THE DISCLAIMER UNTIMELY AS A MATTER OF LAW (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

PROVIDING COUNSEL WITH “MEANINGFUL NOTICE” OF THE CONTENTS OF A... THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY BROKEN GLASS IN A DOOR WAS CAPTURED...