You are here: / / INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY...
,

INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO REPLACED THE WATER HEATER MAY BE LIABLE; THE FOSTER-CARE SERVICE WHICH PLACED H.M. IN THE HOME, HOWEVER, COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the property owner could be liable for injury to a child, H.M. caused by hot water in the shower. The defendant placement service (Leake) had placed H,M. in the foster care of defendant Butler who lived in a home owned by Alicea. Butler had turned on the shower and was picking up H.M.’s clothes when H.M. climbed into the tub. There was a question of fact whether the property owner, Alicea, was liable because of conflicting expert evidence about the danger posed by the temperature of the water. However, the incident was not foreseeable from the perspective of the placement agency (Leake). Therefore, Leake’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

… [T]here is an issue of fact as to whether [Alicea] created the dangerous hot water temperature when he replaced the home’s hot water heater prior to the accident. …

Leake demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the negligent supervision claim against it because it established that it did not have “sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury,” and “[t]he scalding hot bath water was an intervening act or event that is divorced from and not the foreseeable risk associated with. . .defendant’s alleged negligence” … . The excessively hot water was not the foreseeable risk associated with Leake’s alleged negligence in placing more than five children in the home, and the momentary inattention of Butler was not an act that should have been foreseeable by Leake in the exercise of reasonable care … . H.M. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 03376, First Dept 5-27-21

 

You might also like
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE.
Summary Judgment May Be Based Upon an Unpled Affirmative Defense/Oral Waiver May Be Effective in the Face of a “Written Waiver” Requirement in the Contract
A STACK OF SHEETROCK BOARDS WHICH WERE LEANING AGAINST A WALL FELL ON PLAINTIFF; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS A GRAVITY-RELATED EVENT AND WHETHER THE ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WAS DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).
Material Breach and Abandonment of Subcontract Waived Notice of Termination and Opportunity to Cure and Warranted Cost-to-Complete Damages
City Was “United in Interest” with Non-Profit Corporation Which Maintained Central Park Pursuant to a Contract with the City—Therefore Plaintiff, Who Was Allegedly Injured by a Truck Owned by the Non-Profit Corporation, Could Amend His Complaint to Include the Non-Profit Corporation After the Statute of Limitations Had Run—However the Extent to Which the City Was “United in Interest” Was Dictated by the Terms of the Contract
CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO FATHER AND ALL CONTACT BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED WITHOUT A HEARING, JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY OR VISITATION BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EASEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED IN PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CHAIN OF TITLE, IT WAS INDEXED UNDER A BLOCK AND LOT NUMBER SYSTEM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE EASEMENT AND WAS NOT A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PERMANENTLY AFFIXED LADDER VIBRATED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; NO SHOWING PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE HE SHOULD WEAR A HARNESS AND FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD CONSTITUTE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY (FIRST 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

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE FACED A 45-YEAR SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL WHEN THE ACTUAL SENTENCE... WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT A CAUSE OF ACTION...