You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED TO THE FLOOR BY A SHOPPING CART PUSHED BY ANOTHER...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED TO THE FLOOR BY A SHOPPING CART PUSHED BY ANOTHER STORE CUSTOMER; THE DEFENDANT STORE DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MONITOR CUSTOMERS’ USE OF SHOPPING CARTS; ISSUE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff was knocked to the floor by a shopping cart pushed by another customer in the defendant’s store. Apparently the customer had piled items high in the cart and couldn’t see ahead of it. The court noted that, although defendant raised the “no duty to monitor customers” issue for the first time on appeal, it could be considered because it raises an issue of law than could not have been avoided by the court below:

The defendant contends that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it because it did not have a duty to control the conduct of the customer who struck Novak with the shopping cart. Although the defendant has raised this contention for the first time on appeal, “we may consider it . . . because the existence of a duty presents a question of law which could not have been avoided if brought to the Supreme Court’s attention at the proper juncture”… .

“Store owners are charged with the duty of keeping their premises in a reasonably safe condition for the benefit of their customers” … . “[T]his duty may extend to controlling the conduct of third persons who frequent or use the property, at least under some circumstances” … . “This duty is, however, not limitless” … . “[A]n owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such persons and is reasonably aware of the need for such control” … .

Here, the plaintiff contends that the defendant was negligent in failing to monitor its customers’ use of the U-boat shopping carts and, more specifically, in failing to require customers to refrain from loading the carts over a certain height. However, the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty to protect her from the other customer’s negligent use of the U-boat shopping cart because it did not have control over that customer’s actions … . Aupperlee v Restaurant Depot, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08548, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

You might also like
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) [Documentary Evidence] Should Not Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Rebutted the Presumption of Validity of the Forum Selection Clause of the Relevant Contract
WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
Ineffective Electronic Filing Can Be Corrected Pursuant to CPLR 2001 After Statute of Limitations Expired
Prejudice to County Investigation Stemming from Plaintiff’s Describing the Wrong Location of the Slip and Fall in the Notice of Claim Precluded Plaintiff from Amending the Notice
HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO GATHER EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A FAIR HEARING, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment—Plaintiff Demonstrated Defendant’s Negligence and Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE TOOK ADEQUATE STEPS TO LEARN THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE CAB IN WHICH SHE WAS A PASSENGER WHEN THE CAB WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (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

PARKER WARNINGS WERE INADEQUATE BUT THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL;... PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IN A CAR WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY, WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY...