You are here: / / REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST RESTAURANT FOR CHOKING...

REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST RESTAURANT FOR CHOKING ON A ONE INCH FISH BONE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged she choked on a fish bone at defendant’s restaurant:

Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries sustained when she choked on a fish bone while eating a fillet of flounder at defendants-appellants’ restaurant. Plaintiff’s negligence claim should have been dismissed pursuant to the “reasonable expectation” doctrine, as the nearly one-inch bone on which plaintiff choked was not a “harmful substance[]” that a consumer “would not ordinarily anticipate” … . Amiano v Greenwich Vil. Fish Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04544, 1st Dept 6-8-17

NEGLIGENCE (REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST RESTAURANT FOR CHOKING ON A ONE INCH FISH BONE)/REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE (NEGLIGENCE, REASONABLE EXPECTATION DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST RESTAURANT FOR CHOKING ON A ONE INCH FISH BONE)

​

You might also like
THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DEMONSTRATED (1) THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE IT TO MAINTAIN A DRAIN WHICH PERIODICALLY BECAME CLOGGED CAUSING GARBAGE TO FLOAT TO THE SIDEWALK, AND (2) IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE GARBAGE ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT). ​
VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, DESPITE LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, DIZZINESS AND INCONSISTENCIES.
LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO PROCURE TOWN RENTAL PERMIT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE LANDLORD’S ACTION TO COLLECT RENT.
Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Disqualified Defense Counsel Over Defendant’s Objection on Conflict of Interest Grounds—The Fact that a Co-Defendant Had Been Represented by Another Attorney from the New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) Did Not Create a Conflict for Defendant’s NYCDS Attorney—Defendant’s Attorney Did Not Have Access to Any Information Provided by the Co-Defendant (Who Had Already Pled Out)—Client Confidences Are Not Generally Shared by Attorneys Within a Large Institution Like the NYCDS, As They Might Be Within a Private Law Firm
Court’s Failure to Inquire About a Juror’s Sleeping During Deliberations Required Reversal
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE ROPE AND FRAME USED TO PREVENT A HEAVY OBJECT FROM FALLING WHEN PLAINTIFF DETACHED IT FROM THE WALL DID NOT WORK (FIRST DEPT).
WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD NOT BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY.
INSURER’S ATTORNEY MUST BE DEPOSED TO DETERMINE HIS ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITION WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE ATTORNEY’S FILES ARE DISCOVERABLE BY THE PLAINTIFFS (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 NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE,... NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT...