You are here: / / COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED...
,

COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN DUE TO A RECENT STORM.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant transit authority’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff slipped on snow on a step as she got off a bus:

Plaintiff testified that she slipped and fell as she was exiting a bus owned and operated by defendants because the step was covered with a slushy condition. She and the bus driver both stated that there was snow all over the ground from a storm that had ended earlier that day, and certified meteorological records submitted by defendants demonstrated that a snow storm that started the previous night and ended earlier in the day of the accident had left about six inches of snow on the ground. The bus driver also testified that passengers tracked snow onto the bus on their shoes and boots as they boarded.

Common carriers are not obligated to provide a “constant remedy” for the tracking of water onto a bus during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter … . Similarly, when the ground is covered with snow left by a recent storm, “it would be unreasonable to expect the [defendants] to constantly clean the front steps of the subject bus” … . Plaintiff’s argument that defendants failed to show lack of notice of the slushy condition is irrelevant, since they did not breach any duty of care under the existing weather conditions. Harbison v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 01503, 1st Dept 2-28-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN DUE TO A RECENT STORM)/BUSES (SLIP AND FALL, COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN DUE TO A RECENT STORM)/SLIP AND FALL (BUSES, COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN DUE TO A RECENT STORM)

You might also like
THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, AGREEING WITH THE SECOND, DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER WHO HAD BEEN ABUSED BY RESPONDENT FATHER IN THE CHILD’S PRESENCE; THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER IS ONLY TRIGGERED WHEN THE COURT ORDERS THE CHILD REMOVED FROM THE HOME, NOT THE CASE HERE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
A DECEASED PARTY’S ADMISSIONS ARE NOT HEARSAY AS AGAINST THAT PARTY’S ESTATE AND SUPPORT THE PETITIONER-ESTATE’S CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CLAIM; THE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT ESTATE WAS PRESENT DURING DISCUSSIONS AT THE HEART OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CLAIM AND MUST BE DISQUALIFIED UNDER THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE (FIRST DEPT). ​
CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE, EXACERBATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THE CROSSWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED OF A SLIP AND FALL DEFENDANT TO WIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 WHEN HIS POLICE VAN STRUCK PLAINTIFF AS SHE STEPPED INTO THE ROAD FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS; DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO WORK ONLY ON GROUND LEVEL AND NOT TO USE STILTS, AND WHETHER THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED USE OF THE STILTS AFTER HE FELT THEM BECOME UNSTABLE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE STATE IS THE TITLE OWNER OF PIER 40 ON THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER PARK ACT TRANSFERRED LABOR LAW ABSOLUTE LIABILITY TO THE HUDSON RIVER PARK TRUST.
Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion

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

VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE... PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT...