You are here: / Negligence
, , , ,

DEFENDANT RAILROAD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT (FELA) ACTION BY A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PASSENGER PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant railroad’s motion for summary judgment in this Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) by a railroad employee assaulted by a passenger was properly denied. The court explained the evidentiary criteria under the FELA:

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) (45 USC § 51 et seq.) provides that operators of interstate railroads shall be liable to their employees for on-the-job injuries resulting from the railroad’s negligence. In an action under FELA, “the plaintiff must prove the traditional common-law elements of negligence: duty, breach, damages, causation and foreseeability” … . However, these elements are “substantially relaxed” and “negligence is liberally construed to effectuate the statute’s broadly remedial intended function” … . A claim under FELA “must be determined by the jury if there is any question as to whether employer negligence played a part, however small, in producing plaintiff’s injury” … . “A case is deemed unworthy of submission to a jury only if evidence of negligence is so thin that on a judicial appraisal, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that negligence by the employer could have played no part in an employee’s injury” … .

To establish the element of foreseeability, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the defective condition (id.). However, notice generally presents an issue of fact for the jury … . “As with all issues under FELA, the right of the jury to pass on this issue must be liberally construed, with the jury’s power to draw inferences greater than in a common-law action” … .

Under the foregoing relaxed standard, there is sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact concerning defendant’s actual or constructive notice of a risk of assault to conductors on the New Haven Line. Plaintiff testified that she was previously assaulted by a passenger, and that there was an ongoing problem of physical intimidation by large groups of adolescents refusing to pay their fares, which caused her to fear for her safety. Plaintiff also testified that she has called the MTA’s rail traffic controllers for police assistance at least 250 times to deal with abusive passengers; another conductor was punched in the face and knocked out on the New Haven Line; a passenger attempted to stab and rob another conductor on the Harlem Line. Stephney v MTA Metro-N. R.R., 2019 NY Slip Op 05004, First Dept 6-20-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF SUED YANKEE TRAILS FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN IN THIS BUS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; THE OWNER OF THE BUS WAS ACTUALLY YANKEE TRAILS WORLD TOURS, A COMPANY WITH A DIFFERENT ADDRESS AND CEO; PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE THE CORRECT DEFENDANT, MADE AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff should not have been allowed to have more time to serve defendant and amend the complaint to substitute the correct defendant. The action stemmed from a traffic accident involving a bus owned by Yankee Trails. Five days before the statute of limitations ran, plaintiff commenced an action against Yankee Trails World Tours, a different corporation with different addresses and different chief executive officers:

… [W]hether relief pursuant to CPLR 306-b and 305 (c) is available is not merely a matter of discretion. Significantly, “CPLR 306-b cannot be used to extend the time for service against a defendant as to which the action was never validly commenced” … . Similarly, although a court may allow amendment of a summons to correct the name of a defendant pursuant to CPLR 305 (c), such remedy is not available where a plaintiff seeks to substitute a defendant who has not been properly served … .

The fact that defendant and Yankee Trails use the same insurance carrier is of no significance in the circumstances presented; notably, the record reflects that the insurance carrier did not contact Yankee Trails until after the statute of limitations had expired. Nor may we consider plaintiff’s error a mere misnomer that would allow relief to be granted pursuant to CPLR 305 (c) and CPLR 306-b … . Upon this record, plaintiff’s attempt to “proceed against [Yankee Trails as] an unserved and entirely new defendant” after the statute of limitations had run should have been denied, as he failed to obtain jurisdiction over Yankee Trails for relief pursuant CPLR 306-b and, thus, to later amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 … . Fadlalla v Yankee Trails World Tours, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05044, Third Dept 6-20-19

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION TO DISGORGE LEGAL FEES PAID TO LAWFIRM WHICH IS ALLEGED TO HAVE REPRESENTED ADVERSE PARTIES IN THE SAME MATTER; THE ACTION TO DISGORGE FEES IS INDEPENDENT FROM ANY ACTION ALLEGING LEGAL MALPRACTICE OR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for forfeiture of legal fees on conflict of interest grounds:

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff’s decedent retained the defendant in 2005 to, among other things, analyze her ownership interest in Wilson [Corporation], including her right to certain retained earnings in the sum of $20 million. The complaint further alleged that, in January 2007, the defendant began acting as Wilson’s corporate counsel, and, beginning in 2008, performed legal services for Wilson regarding the decedent’s right to those retained earnings. * * *

“An attorney who violates a disciplinary rule may be discharged for cause and is not entitled to fees for any services rendered” … . A cause of action for forfeiture of legal fees based on an attorney’s discharge for cause due to ethical violations may be maintained independent of a cause of action alleging legal malpractice or breach of fiduciary duty, and does not require proof or allegations of damages … .

… [T]he complaint seeks forfeiture of legal fees paid to the defendant between January 2007 and August 2009 in connection with the plaintiff’s decedent’s claim against Wilson for retained earnings. The complaint alleges that the decedent retained the defendant in January 2007 to recoup the retained earnings from Wilson, that the defendant also represented and performed legal work for Wilson on that issue between 2008 and 2009, that the interests of the decedent and Wilson on that issue were adverse, and that the dual representation violated rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). The complaint further alleged that, as a result of its previous dual representation, the defendant was disqualified from representing the decedent’s estate in a 2009 turnover proceeding against Wilson to collect the retained earnings. Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, these allegations are sufficient to state a viable cause of action to disgorge legal fees … . Baugher v Cullen & Dykman, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op 04904, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW THERE WAS A COMPELLING NEED FOR DISCOVERY OF ‘ALCOHOL/DRUG TREATMENT/MENTAL HEALTH INFORMATION/HIV-RELATED INFORMATION’ IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DISCOVERY REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the defendants request for discovery of “Alcohol/Drug Treatment/Mental Health Information/HIV-Related Information” in this slip and fall case was not supported by evidence of a compelling need:

“[A] party must provide duly executed and acknowledged written authorizations for the release of pertinent medical records under the liberal discovery provisions of the CPLR when that party has waived the physician-patient privilege by affirmatively putting his or her physical or mental condition in issue” … However, Public Health Law § 2785(1) provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall issue an order for the disclosure of confidential HIV related information,” and the only exception to that prohibition that is pertinent in this case requires an application showing “a compelling need for disclosure of the information for the adjudication of a criminal or civil proceeding” (Public Health Law § 2785[2][a]).

Here, the defendants failed to proffer any showing of a compelling need for disclosure related to “HIV-Related Information.” Further, the defendants failed to submit an expert affidavit or any other evidence that would establish a connection between “Alcohol/Drug Treatment/Mental Health Information/HIV-Related Information,” and the cause of the accident, and failed to make any effort to link any such information to the plaintiff’s ability to recover from his injuries or his prognosis for future enjoyment of life … . Nesbitt v Advanced Serv. Solutions, 2019 NY Slip Op 04961, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

, ,

NO SHOWING THAT THE AMBULANCE SIREN OR EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE IN USE WHEN THE INTERSECTION COLLISION OCCURRED, THEREFORE THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES APPLIED, THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipal defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this ambulance traffic accident case should have been denied. The municipal defendants did not demonstrate that the reckless disregard standard for emergency vehicles applied because they did not present evidence the ambulance siren or emergency lights were in use:

… [W]hile the reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) applies to a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation, who engages in specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the exemptions apply only when the authorized emergency vehicle sounded audible signals such as a siren and displayed at least one red light (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[c]). Here, the municipal defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under the reckless disregard standard of care, as they did not demonstrate that the siren and lights on the ambulance were activated as required for the exemptions set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) to apply … . Wynter v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04993, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

,

VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES, ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OR REGULATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE PER SE, ONLY VIOLATIONS OF STATUTES CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE PER SE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendant Delco’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the negligence per se cause of action should have been granted. Negligence per se is shown by the violation of a statute, not, as here, by the violation of local ordinances, administrative rules or regulations. Plaintiffs alleged Delco, a painting contractor, caused a fire at plaintiffs’ residence. The Second Department held there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the causation element of the negligence cause of action:

Delco failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it performed electrical work in the area in which the fire started. Although representatives of Delco and Chestnut asserted in their deposition testimony that Delco was not hired to, and did not, perform any electrical work on the subject premises, those averments were contradicted by the deposition testimony of some of the tenant plaintiffs, who asserted that they had observed Delco performing electrical work in the apartment where the fire occurred, and that Delco was the only entity that performed repairs and other work at the premises generally, including electrical work. The foregoing circumstantial evidence set forth sufficient facts upon which Delco’s liability could be reasonably and logically inferred … . …

However, that branch of Delco’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the negligence per se causes of action asserted against it by the tenant plaintiffs should have been granted. “[V]iolation of a State statute that imposes a specific duty constitutes negligence per se, or may even create absolute liability”… . In contrast, violation of local ordinances or administrative rules and regulations constitutes only evidence of negligence … . Here, the tenant plaintiffs did not allege that Delco violated any particular State statute. Rather, they only alleged violations of local laws … . Rivera v 203 Chestnut Realty Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 04976, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF PARTICIPATING IN AN OBSTACLE COURSE RACE; PLAINTIFF FELL ATTEMPTING A ‘MONSTER CLIMB’ WHICH HAD BEEN ERECTED ON A ROADWAY WITH NO MATS BENEATH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by participating in a “Monster Climb” knowing she could fall and knowing there were no protective mats. The event was an obstacle course race sponsored by defendants and held at a public park:

… [T]he plaintiffs argued that the assumption of risk doctrine cannot apply unless the sport or recreational activity takes place at a permanent, designated facility. They also argued that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants unreasonably increased the risk of the Monster Climb obstacle by erecting it on a roadway without protective mats underneath it, by allowing an unlimited number of participants on the obstacle’s cargo nets at the same time, and by having staffers shout at the injured plaintiff to turn her body and hurry up. …

The “assumption of risk doctrine applies where a consenting participant in sporting and amusement activities is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks'”… . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . Risks which are “commonly encountered” or “inherent” in a sport, as well as risks “involving less than optimal conditions,” are risks which participants have accepted and are encompassed by the assumption of risk doctrine … “It is not necessary . . . that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … . A participant’s awareness of risk is “to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” … . Ramos v Michael Epstein Sports Prods., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04973, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY SHE WAS NOT TICKETED; DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCREASED UNCONDITIONALLY BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNLESS DEFENDANT STIPULATES TO THE INCREASED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that defendant, in this traffic accident case, should not have been allowed to testify that she did not receive a traffic ticket. The court also noted that the trial judge properly determined the damages for past pain and suffering should be increased, but that the proper procedure is to order a new trial unless the defendant stipulates to the increased amount. The trial judge had unconditionally increased the damages amount:

It is well established that “[e]vidence of nonprosecution is inadmissible in a civil action” … . In our view, however, that was the only error during trial … . We conclude that, “standing alone” … , the error was harmless, and therefore the court properly denied the motion insofar as it sought to set aside the jury verdict and a new trial on all issues (see CPLR 2002).

Plaintiff further contends that the jury’s damages award for pain and suffering materially deviated from what would be reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s injuries and that the deviation was not cured by the court’s increase of the award for past pain and suffering. We reject that contention. We conclude that the court properly determined that the jury’s verdict for past pain and suffering should be increased to $125,000 and that the award for future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s injuries (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The court, however, erred in unconditionally increasing the past pain and suffering award. ” [T]he proper procedure when a damages award is inadequate is to order a new trial on damages unless [a] defendant stipulates to the increased amount’ ” … . Queen v Kogut, 2019 NY Slip Op 04863, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

,

GAP IN BATHROOM STALL DOOR AT MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, IN WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS PINCHED AND PARTIALLY SEVERED WHEN THE DOOR SLAMMED SHUT, WAS NOT UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS AND WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the gap in a bathroom stall door at a McDonald’s restaurant, in which infant plaintiff’s finger was pinched and partially severed when her brother slammed the door, was not an unreasonably dangerous condition. In addition, the court found the condition was open and obvious and there was no duty to warn. The dissent noted the testimony that McDonald’s now installs finger guards which raised questions of fact whether defendants were on notice the door presented an unreasonably dangerous condition:

Defendants met their initial burden by establishing that the stall door did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response … . The affidavit of plaintiffs’ expert was ” speculative and not sufficiently probative to defeat defendant[s’] motion for summary judgment’ ” … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ further contention, we conclude that the alleged hazard posed by the bathroom stall door was also open and obvious, and therefore defendants had no duty to warn that the door presented a finger-pinching hazard … . Christopher J.G. v Derico of E. Amherst Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 04857, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE VERDICT SHEET DID NOT REFLECT THE TRIAL EVIDENCE ON THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged her bowel was perforated during surgery. The defense expert testified the bowel must be fully inspected as it is replaced, section by section. However, defendant surgeon testified he did not fully inspect the bowel. In addition the jury was asked to determine whether the bowel was subjected to a “focused inspection.” However there was no trial evidence equating a “focused inspection” with the standard of care. A new trial was necessary:

The weight of the evidence greatly preponderates in favor of plaintiff due, in no small part, to defendant’s testimony that he not only failed to perform a “focused inspection” of the bowel, but that “[he could not] not observe it” as he returned it into plaintiff’s abdomen. In not “observing” the bowel, defendant plainly could not have conducted a careful visualization of the body part as it was returned to plaintiff’s body; therefore he was plainly not performing a “focused inspection.” Defendant also admitted that “[he] didn’t specifically look for [bruising]” of the bowel, which his own expert testified is required when inspecting the bowel during an aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

Defendant also testified that he only looked at the bowel’s top side. Although his expert did not testify that defendant was personally required to view the other side, she did explain that the other surgeon in the operating room must view that side so that both surgeons, collectively, can view the entire bowel. Defendant did not testify that he ensured that the assisting surgeon carefully viewed the back side of the bowel, segment by segment. Moreover, the assisting surgeon did not testify that defendant instructed her to do so. Inasmuch as defendant’s conduct does not meet the standard articulated by the expert witnesses, we conclude that the evidence so preponderates in plaintiff’s favor that the court erred in denying her motion to set aside the verdict … Monzon v Porter, 2019 NY Slip Op 04855, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

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