You are here: / Negligence
,

PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF’S EMERGING FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS AND ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants demonstrated plaintiff's emerging from between parked cars and attempting to cross the street where there was no crosswalk constituted the sole proximate cause of the pedestrian-vehicle accident

… [T]he defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff, given his actions in crossing the street as he did at the time of the accident, violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152(a) and was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion on the ground, among others, that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver operated the vehicle in a negligent manner. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion, and the defendants appeal.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the conduct of the plaintiff in crossing the street at a location other than at an intersection, while emerging from between vehicles in the left lane of eastbound traffic, was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that the defendant driver was free from fault despite the plaintiff's allegation that he failed to avoid a collision with the plaintiff … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver operated the vehicle in a negligent manner or failed to see that which, through proper use of his senses, he should have seen … . Pixtun-Suret v Gevinski, 2018 NY Slip Op 06581, Second Dept 10-3-18

NEGLIGENCE (PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF'S EMERGING FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS AND ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF'S EMERGING FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS AND ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF'S EMERGING FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS AND ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT, ACTIONS WERE VIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ABUSE DID NOT OCCUR ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant Department of Education's (DOE's) motion for summary judgment in this negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision action was properly denied. The suit alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff-student by a school employee (Denice). Although the abuse did not take place on school premises, it was preceded by inappropriate conduct in the school, including touching:

… [T]he DOE defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the DOE was not negligent with respect to the hiring, retention, and supervision of Denice. The DOE defendants' own submissions in support of their motion for summary judgment raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the DOE took the appropriate measures to evaluate Denice's employment and fitness at the time he was allowed to intern at the school… . Moreover, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the DOE had notice of the potential for harm to the infant plaintiff such that its alleged negligence in supervising and retaining Denice “placed [Denice] in a position to cause foreseeable harm” … .

Generally, liability may not be imposed upon school authorities where all of the improper acts against a student occurred off school premises and outside school hours … . Here, however, the DOE defendants' submissions demonstrated that, although the sexual abuse ultimately occurred in the infant plaintiff's home, it was preceded by time periods when the infant plaintiff was alone with Denice during school hours on a regular basis. During these times, Denice engaged in inappropriate behavior, including physical touching. Thus, triable issues of fact exist regarding, inter alia, whether the DOE knew or should have known of such behavior and Denice's propensity for sexual abuse … . Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 06518, Second Dept 10-3-18\

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT, ACTIONS WERE VIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ABUSE DID NOT OCCUR ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW  (NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT, ACTIONS WERE VIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ABUSE DID NOT OCCUR ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT, ACTIONS WERE VIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ABUSE DID NOT OCCUR ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT)

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined questions of fact raised by the police reported precluded summary judgment in plaintiff's favor in this rear-end collision case. Although the police report included inadmissible statements, plaintiff waived any objections by submitting the report with the motion papers:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit wherein he averred that he gradually brought his vehicle to a stop for a red traffic light and that his vehicle was stopped for approximately three to five seconds when it was struck in the rear by the defendants' vehicle. The plaintiff also submitted, however, an uncertified copy of a police accident report, which stated that according to the defendant driver, the plaintiff's vehicle came to a sudden stop even though the traffic light was green. Although the police report contained self-serving statements not in admissible form, the plaintiff waived any objection to the admissibility of the report by submitting it in support of his motion … . Under the circumstances, triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether the defendant driver had a nonnegligent explanation for striking the plaintiff's vehicle in the rear … . Grant v Carrasco, 2018 NY Slip Op 06516, Second Dept 10-3-18

NEGLIGENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE REPORTS (EVIDENCE, REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the products liability and negligence causes of action against the manufacturer of a motorcycle helmet properly survived summary judgment. There are two parts to securing the helmet with a strap—a D-ring fastener and a snap. Plaintiff used only the snap and was injured, allegedly as a result of the failure of the helmet to protect him. The court noted that plaintiff's untimely response to the defendants motion for summary judgment was properly considered because defendants' were able to reply to it and the demonstration of prejudice was insufficient:

The court correctly rejected defendants' contention that the danger of failing to secure the helmet with the D-rings was open and obvious as a matter of law and that therefore it did not render the helmet unfit for its intended use and they had no duty to warn of the danger or to design the helmet differently. That a danger is open and obvious does not preclude a design defect claim … . Defendants similarly failed to establish that the design of the chin strap did not breach their warranties of fitness and merchantability … .

While there is no duty to warn of a hazard that is open and obvious and “readily apparent as a matter of common sense” … , the record presents issues of fact as to whether the danger of failing to use the D-rings and using only the snap fastener to secure the helmet is open and obvious … . Narvaez v Wadsworth, 2018 NY Slip Op 06475, First Dept 10-2-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/WARN, FAILURE TO (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/MOTORCYCLE HELMET (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/HELMET ​(PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT)/WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

DEFENDANT OFFERED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted. Defendant offered a nonnegligent explanation of the accident:

“It is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle . . . In order to rebut the presumption [of negligence], the driver of the rear vehicle must submit a non[]negligent explanation for the collision . . . One of several nonnegligent explanations for a rear-end collision is a sudden stop of the lead vehicle . . . , and such an explanation is sufficient to overcome the inference of negligence and preclude an award of summary judgment” … . Here, defendant averred that he was traveling behind the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger when it stopped suddenly at a green light and that, despite his efforts, he could not stop in time to avoid a collision. Plaintiff offered a contrary account in her affidavit. Thus, there is an issue of fact sufficient to defeat plaintiffs' motion with respect to the issue of negligence … . Macri v Kotrys, 2018 NY Slip Op 06387, Fourth Dept 9-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT OFFERED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (DEFENDANT OFFERED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS  (DEFENDANT OFFERED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

ARBITRATOR’S AWARD WAS NOT IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED THE AWARD IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator's award in this rear-end collision case should not have been vacated:

“It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” … . As relevant here, a court may vacate an arbitration award if it finds that the rights of a party were prejudiced when “an arbitrator . . . exceeded his [or her] power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]).

… An arbitrator exceeds his or her power where, inter alia, the award is “irrational”… , i.e., “there is no proof whatever to justify the award”… . Where, however, “an arbitrator offers even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached, the arbitration award must be upheld” … . Here, the arbitrator's determination is not irrational inasmuch as defendant submitted evidence establishing that plaintiff's injuries were not serious or were not caused by the accident … .

Plaintiff correctly concedes that the arbitrator did not “imperfectly execute[]” his power (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]), inasmuch as the arbitration award did not ” leave[] the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations,' ” fail to ” resolve the controversy submitted or . . . create[] a new controversy' ” … .

Additionally, “it is well established that an arbitrator's failure to set forth his [or her] findings or reasoning does not constitute a basis to vacate an award” … . Whitney v Perrotti, 2018 NY Slip Op 06343, Fourth Dept 9-28-18

ARBITRATION (ARBITRATOR'S AWARD WAS NOT IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED THE AWARD IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 7511(ARBITRATOR'S AWARD WAS NOT IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED THE AWARD IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT ACTED RECKLESSLY IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant's motion for summary judgment in this skiing accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured in a collision with defendant. The assumption of the risk doctrine did not preclude the suit because a question of fact had been raised about whether defendant acted recklessly:

… [P]laintiffs submitted, inter alia, an affidavit from an emergency room physician who was also an 11-year veteran of the National Ski Patrol. Based on his review of the depositions and other records related to the case, the expert opined that, given the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries, “there [was] no question [that] the force with which [defendant] impacted [plaintiff's] left side and back was immense” and that plaintiff's injuries were “not consistent with [defendant's] deposition testimony” that he had come to or nearly come to a complete stop. The expert further opined that, “[g]iven that [plaintiff] was skiing slowly at the time of the collision, the severe injuries sustained by [both] men, and their unanimous testimony that the collision was severe, it [was] clear [that defendant] was snowboarding at an extremely high rate of speed at the time of the collision.” The expert thus concluded that defendant had “unreasonably increased the risk of harm” to plaintiff by cutting across the beginner trail “at an extremely high rate of speed . . . knowing that there would be skiers and snowboarders traveling down [the beginner trail]” and that defendant's conduct constituted “an egregious breach of good and accepted snowboarding practices.” * * *

… [T]the record establishes that the collision was exceedingly violent and, inasmuch as we must accept as true plaintiff's testimony that he was the one who was skiing slowly … , there is “at least a question of fact . . . whether . . . defendant's speed in the vicinity and overall conduct was reckless” … . Contrary to defendant's contention, the affidavit of plaintiffs' expert was neither conclusory nor speculative … . Sopkovich v Smith, 2018 NY Slip Op 06342, Fourth Dept 9-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT ACTED RECKLESSLY IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SKIING (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT ACTED RECKLESSLY IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (SKIING ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT ACTED RECKLESSLY IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that defendant's motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Defendant did not demonstrate when the area of the fall was last inspected or cleaned and did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of water on the floor:

Defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff slipped and fell on water in the vestibule of defendant's building. Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it lacked constructive notice because the superintendent failed to testify or aver that his assistant adhered to a janitorial schedule on the day of the accident or when the area was last inspected prior to plaintiff's fall … . Since defendant failed to meet its initial burden to establish that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged defect as a matter of law, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to establish how long the condition existed … .

Defendant also failed to establish that it lacked constructive notice on the basis that the water was not present in the vestibule for a sufficient period to afford defendant an opportunity to discover and remedy the condition … . Whether the water was present for that sufficient period presents an outstanding factual issue, as the time it took plaintiff and her friend to return to the premises from the store is unclear, and defendant failed to clarify the issue at the deposition. Hill v Manhattan N. Mgt., 2018 NY Slip Op 06323, First Dept 9-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action based upon exposure to lead in utero was properly dismissed. Plaintiff alleged his father’s clothes were saturated with lead at work:

At common law, employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace, but this duty has been limited to employees (see Labor Law § 200…). It has not, as the plaintiff contends, been extended to encompass individuals who were not employed at the worksite such as the plaintiff or his mother during her pregnancy … .

While “[a] landowner generally must exercise reasonable care, with regard to any activities which he carries on, for the protection of those outside of his premises'” … , the facts alleged in this case differ from those to which a landowner’s duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of individuals off site has been held to extend … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the alleged violations of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (hereinafter OSHA) regulations … , the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 , specifically 29 USC § 654(a), and Labor Law § 27-a do not constitute negligence per se. The violation of OSHA regulations provides only evidence of negligence … . Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor his mother during her pregnancy belonged to the class intended to be protected by OSHA or its implementing regulations, 29 USC § 654(a), or Labor Law § 27-a, namely employees … . Campanelli v Long Is. Light. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06225, Second Dept 9-26-18

NEGLIGENCE (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW  (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS  (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW  (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

THE DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant in this rear-end collision case did not raise a question of fact about whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for striking plaintiff's vehicle:

… [T]he defendants submitted the affidavit of the defendant driver, which failed to provide a nonnegligent excuse for striking the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant driver averred that the plaintiff's vehicle struck a vehicle in front of it and came to a short stop. According to the defendant driver, there was heavy, stop-and-go traffic at the time, and the vehicle he was operating was traveling approximately 5 to 10 miles per hour and was approximately 20 feet behind the plaintiff's vehicle when the plaintiff's vehicle stopped short. The defendant driver asserted that he could not stop his vehicle in time to avoid the impact. “While a nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision may include evidence of a sudden stop of the lead vehicle, vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her vehicle and the vehicle ahead” … . Given the traffic conditions as related by the defendant driver, his assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle came to a sudden stop was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the collision between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendants' vehicle … . Arslan v Costello, 2018 NY Slip Op 06221, Second Dept 9-26-18

NEGLIGENCE (THE DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (THE DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS (THE DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S VEHICLE (SECOND 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