You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S USE OF AN AREA AS A WALKWAY WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, DEFENDANT’S...

PLAINTIFF’S USE OF AN AREA AS A WALKWAY WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, affirming the grant of defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case, determined the area where plaintiff tripped on a piece of pipe was not demonstrated to be an area used as a walkway. Therefore plaintiff’s use of the area as a walkway was not foreseeable:

 “A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in maintaining its property in a safe condition”… . To that end, “the scope of a landowner’s duty is measured in terms of foreseeability” …  Because “[t]he risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed”… , the issue distills to whether it was foreseeable that plaintiff, despite being provided with established and alternative avenues of ingress and egress from defendant’s firehouse, would instead exit the rear of the structure at night and traverse a sloped, unlit strip of land — located between the firehouse and a row of trees/shrubbery — in order to reach the front parking lot of the firehouse and retrieve his vehicle. Upon reviewing the record as a whole, we are satisfied that defendant met its burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s means of egress was not reasonably foreseeable and, further, that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on this point. Kirby v Summitville Fire Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 05652, 3rd Dept 7-13-17

NEGLIGENCE (FORESEEABILITY, PLAINTIFF’S USE OF AN AREA AS A WALKWAY WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (FORESEEABILITY, PLAINTIFF’S USE OF AN AREA AS A WALKWAY WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/FORESEEABILITY (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S USE OF AN AREA AS A WALKWAY WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

You might also like
What To Do If the District Attorney Does Not Wish to Prosecute But the Judge Does
Employer Did Not Exercise Sufficient Control over Claimant’s Work—Finding that Claimant Was an Employee Was Not Supported
Defendant Entitled to New Counsel After Defense Attorney Took a Position Adverse to Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Defendant’s Papers Deemed Insufficient to Trigger Need for Suppression Hearing
FAILURE TO SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION TO BE REVIEWED WAS MADE IN ANSWER TO QUESTION 15 OF THE APPLICATION JUSTIFIED THE BOARD’S REFUSING TO REVIEW IT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF THE RELEVANT HEARING WAS INDICATED ELSEWHERE IN THE APPLICATION (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE AN ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE EVALUATION WAS ORDERED THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE DRUG TREATMENT COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION HEARING, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT RETURNED TO WORK AT FULL PAY, SHOULD SHE STOP WORK IN THE FUTURE SHE IS ENTITLED TO 375 WEEKS OF BENEFITS FOR PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY WHICH RESULTED IN A 70% LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY (THIRD DEPT).
ARBITRATOR’S DECISION FINDING CLAIMANT WAS PROPERLY DISCHARGED FOR MISCONDUCT ENTITLED TO COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROCEEDING (THIRD 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

QUESTION OF FACT RE DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS INTERSECTION... QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT EASEMENT BY NECESSITY CLAIM AND LOCATION OF EASEMENT...