You are here: / / Bus Company’s Duty of Care Did Not Include Keeping Steps to the Bus...

Bus Company’s Duty of Care Did Not Include Keeping Steps to the Bus Dry and Free of Snow During a Snow Storm

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the defendant bus company could not be held liable for a slip and fall on wet steps on a bus during a snow storm:

“[A] common carrier is subject to the same duty of care as any other potential tortfeasor—reasonable care under all of the circumstances of the particular case” … . Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it did not breach any duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances that existed at the time of the accident … . Given the inclement weather conditions when the accident occurred, “it would be unreasonable to expect the [defendant] to constantly clean the steps of the subject bus” … . Batista v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 05430, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

You might also like
THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A INJURY CLAIM SHOULD BE PROCESSED IS ARBITRABLE BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ADDRESSED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGANING AGREEMENT (CBA); THE PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
14-Day Election Law Statute of Limitations, Not Article 78 Statute of Limitations, Applied
PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO HER AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S STAIRWAY FALL RESULTED FROM A MISSTEP, EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS “LOOKING FOR A HANDRAIL” RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT A LATE NOTICE OF HIS INTENT TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Judge’s Failure to Properly Handle Note from Jury Was Reversible Error
RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (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

Elements of Negligence, General Business Law 349 and Tortious Interference with... Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–No Notice of Wet Condition Where...