You are here: / / WHETHER A CONDITION IS “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” IS USUALLY A JURY...
,

WHETHER A CONDITION IS “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” IS USUALLY A JURY QUESTION; IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL OVER THE FORK PART OF A FORKLIFT PARKED IN AN AISLE OF A HOME DEPOT STORE; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that whether a condition is “open and obvious” is usually a question of fact for the jury:

“A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . “However, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous” … . “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” … .

Here, the defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the forklift was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . “Some hazards, although discernable, may be hazardous because of their nature and location” … . In particular, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the forklift’s location, in relation to the five quarter decking the plaintiff was loading into his cart when the accident occurred, constituted an inherently dangerous condition … . The plaintiff testified, inter alia, that he could not put his cart right next to the location in the aisle where he was retrieving the five quarter decking because the forklift was in the way. Simon v Plainview Ave. Assoc., 2026 NY Slip Op 05205, Second Dept 9-2-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff tripped over the fork part of a forklift parked in an aisle of a Home Depot store. The complaint should not have been dismissed. Whether the condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous was a question of fact.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE ORAL CONTRACT CALLED FOR THE MATURATION OF A LOAN AFTER 15 YEARS, THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT WITHIN A YEAR.
THE TRIPPING HAZARD IN A WALKWAY VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE DEFENDANT DEVELOPED THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPLAINANT FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF VICTIMIZING HER AND THEREFORE 20 POINTS WERE PROPERLY ASSESSED UNDER RISK FACTOR 7; THE COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPLAINANT WHICH RENDERD RISK FACTOR 7 INAPPLICABLE UNDER THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN COOK (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Passengers in Car Struck from Behind Entitled to Summary Judgment Despite Issue of Comparative Fault on the Part of the Driver of the Car in which They Were Passengers
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO SERVE A CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS, WHICH APPARENTLY RESULTED IN THE PLAINTIFFS NOT ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE, DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ FULLY SUBMITTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH MUST BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION.
THE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE FAILED TO ADVISE DEFENDANT (1) THAT THE STATE WOULD BEAR THE COSTS OF AN APPEAL IF THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT AFFORD THEM; AND (2) THE WAIVER DID NOT ENCOMPASS THE LOSS OF RIGHTS TO COUNSEL AND THE WAIVER OF COSTS, FEES, AND EXPENSES; IN ADDITION THE JUDGE DID NOT ASCERTAIN WHETHER DEFFENDANT READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE WRITTEN WAIVER FORM, OR WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD DISCUSSED THE WAIVER WITH COUNSEL (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE JURY VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION TRIAL WAS IRREVOCABLY INCONSISTENT... THE PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE VILLAGE’S SEQRA...