You are here: / / Triable Issues of Fact Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Allowing Third...

Triable Issues of Fact Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Allowing Third Parties to Operate Remote Control Cars On Its Parking Lot—Motorcyclist Injured When Attempting to Avoid a Remote Controlled Car

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly denied to the property owner (Farmingdale) which was aware its  parking lot was being used for radio remote control cars.  Plaintiff alleged he was injured when he tried to avoid a remote control car while riding his motorcycle:

“A property owner, or one in possession or control of property, has a duty to take reasonable measures to control the foreseeable conduct of third parties on the property to prevent them from intentionally harming or creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others” … . However, “[t]his duty [only] arises when there is an ability and opportunity to control such conduct, and an awareness of the need to do so” … . A property owner cannot be held to a duty to take protective measures unless it is shown that he either knows or has reason to know from past experience ” that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons . . . which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor'” … .

Under the circumstances here, Farmingdale failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it had the knowledge, authority, or opportunity to control the conduct of the third parties operating the radio remote control cars in the subject parking lot, and as to whether the conduct of the third parties in the parking lot posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to others … . Tiranno v Warthog Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05322, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

You might also like
Judge’s Failure to Comply with CPL Re: Response to Jury Note Required Reversal
COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO FATHER’S ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM FATHER’S FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injuries in Labor Law 240(1) Action
PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER TO SLIP ON A STAIRWAY STEP BUT SHE TESTIFIED SHE LOOKED FOR SOMETHING TO HOLD ONTO AND THERE WAS NO HANDRAIL; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER FALL (SECOND DEPT).
“Special Exception Permit” Defined
PETITION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER A CONDOMINIUM TO MAKE REPAIRS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE MADE AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING, THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE LABOR LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALLOWING A WORKER TO SUE FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE THE WORKER WAS PAID BIWEEKLY, NOT WEEKLY AS REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 191 (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

Ambiguity About the Timing of a Final Decision from an Administrative Agency... Black Letter Law Re: Rear-End Collisions and Premature Summary Judgment Motions...