You are here: / / FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY ON EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS...
,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY ON EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury on the effect of the defendant’s violation of a statute and/or a regulation required reversal of the defense verdict in this slip and fall case. The New York State Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act require eight-foot wide aisles for access to handicapped parking spots.  Plaintiff, who had a handicapped parking permit, slipped on a grassy slope after getting out of his car. The plaintiff’s expert testified the parking spot where plaintiff fell did not comply with the statutory/regulatory requirements for handicapped parking. The plaintiff requested the jury be instructed on the effect of a statutory violation (negligence per se) and the defendant requested the jury be instructed on the effect of a regulatory violation (some evidence of negligence). The judge denied both requests. The Second Department ordered a new trial:

Jury instructions should adequately convey “the sum and substance of the applicable law to be charged” … . A new trial is warranted when an error is “so significant that the jury was prevented from fairly considering the issues at trial” … .

“The general rule is that the violation of a statute that establishes a specific safety duty constitutes negligence per se” … . When evidence is presented that a defendant violated such a statute, the jury’s role is to determine whether the violation of that statute proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury (… PJI 2:25). Moreover, if proven, a violation of the Building Code of New York State can be considered by a jury as some evidence of negligence (… PJI 2:29…). * * *

Based on the evidence, the trial court should have charged the jury as to the language of the applicable sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act along with PJI 2:25 and the applicable sections of the Building Code of New York State and the Property Maintenance Code of New York State, in conjunction with PJI 2:29. The failure to do so cannot be considered harmless error since these provisions are applicable to the subject parking lot … . DiLallo v Katsan LP, 2015 NY Slip Op 09248, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS)/EVIDENCE (EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS IN NEGLIGENCE CASE)/STATUTORY VIOLATION (NEGLIGENCE PER SE)/REGULATORY VIOLATIONS (SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY STEMMING FROM A FIGHT DURING A HOCKEY GAME (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INTEREST CALCULATION WAS DONE USING THE METHOD REQUIRED BY THE NOTE AND THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
THE RELIGIOUS CEREMONY IN THIS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN 2005 BEFORE NEW YORK RECOGNIZED SAME SEX MARRIAGE; THE CIVIL MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN 2011 JUST AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY ACT (MEA); DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER ANSWER TO ALLEGE THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN 2005 (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Homeowner Demonstrated She Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition and Did Not Create the Dangerous Condition (Deck Collapsed When Plaintiff Was Inspecting the Property Prior to Beginning Work)
PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO BRING A COMMON-LAW ACTION TO ENJOIN ZONING VIOLATIONS BY VIRTUE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES.
TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DEEMED TO HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT BEFORE SIGNING, LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AGAINST HER ATTORNEYS PROPERLY DISMISSED.
ALTHOUGH THE HOMEOWNER HIRED CONTRACTORS TO REPAIR HER HOME AND VISITED THE PROPERTY AS THE WORK WAS BEING DONE SHE DID NOT DIRECT OR SUPERVISE THE WORK AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION (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

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NORMAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HORSEBACK... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A STOP SIGN AT AN...