You are here: / / ALLEGEDLY OPERATING A TREE-TRIMMING BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE AND ENTRUSTING...
,

ALLEGEDLY OPERATING A TREE-TRIMMING BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE AND ENTRUSTING THE TREE-TRIMMING TRUCK TO PLAINTIFF’S CO-WORKER, IF NEGLIGENT, WERE NOT PROXIMATE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, THE DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE TRUCK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, AND THE ACCIDENT WAS AN ‘EXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE,’ SO THERE WAS NO DUTY TO WARN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the allegations that defendants were operating a tree-trimming business without a license and negligently entrusted the tree-trimming to one Perez (with whom plaintiff worked) were not proximate causes of the injury. Plaintiff caught a ring on his finger on a spike on a metal step on the truck and his finger was severed. The court noted that the danger was open and obvious and the accident was an ‘extraordinary occurrence’ so there was no duty to warn:

“Evidence of negligence is not enough by itself to establish liability. It must also be proved that the negligence was [a proximate] cause of the event which produced the harm”… . Thus, ” liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes'” … . Further, “proximate cause is no less essential an element of liability because the negligence charged is premised in part or in whole on a claim that a statute or ordinance . . . has been violated” … .

… [E]ven if the defendants were negligent in operating a tree-trimming business without a license or in lending or renting or entrusting the truck to Perez, such negligent acts only furnished the occasion for the plaintiff’s accident … , but were not a proximate cause of the accident. The defendants additionally demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not have any “special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to [Perez] which render[ed] [his] use of the [truck] unreasonably dangerous,” as is required to establish a negligent entrustment cause of action … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to either negligence or negligent entrustment.

With respect to the cause of action alleging a violation of the defendants’ duty to warn, the defendants demonstrated … that any danger posed by the stairs was open and obvious and known to the plaintiff from his prior use of the truck … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s accident was an “extraordinary occurrence” … . “[T]here is no duty to warn against an extraordinary occurrence, which would not suggest itself to a reasonably careful and prudent person as one which should be guarded against”… . Deschamps v Timberwolf Tree & Tile Serv., 2019 NY Slip Op 04133, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT MERELY AMPLIFIED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS; HOWEVER, THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE VICTIMLESS CRIME DID NOT CONSTITUTE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “RAISE THE AGE” LEGISLATION; THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER’S CASE FROM THE YOUTH PART OF SUPREME COURT TO FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) APPLIED, NO EVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BUT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT DRIVER’S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PROTRUDING BOLT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​
JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ARREARS AND COUNSEL FEES MADE AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THE AMOUNT MUST BE RESOLVED BY A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
INABILITY TO AGREE ON CHILD’S RELIGIOUS TRAINING CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING THE AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER (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

PLAINTIFF SUED DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS ALLEGING INACCURATE ADVICE CAUSED HER TO... INJURY CAUSED BY THE INHALATION OF ASPERGILLUS FUNGUS PROPERLY DEEMED A COMPENSABLE...