Negligence – Page 216 – New York Appellate Digest

TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT TOW TRUCK WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s tow truck merely furnished the condition for the rear-end collision and was not the proximate cause. The tow truck driver was in the process of hooking up a car (a Jetta) to tow it off the expressway when the Jetta was struck from behind by an intoxicated driver (Ripoli) who had fallen asleep. Plaintiff was a passenger in the Jetta:

Defendants-appellants are entitled to summary judgment, because the tow truck driver’s affirmative negligence, if any, did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which plaintiff’s injury was made possible… .. There is no allegation that their actions violated a traffic regulation and the record shows that the tow truck driver was in the process of securing the vehicle to tow it off the expressway when the accident happened.

Plaintiff’s assertion that the accident would not have occurred if the tow truck driver had placed additional flares or moved the ones that the police officers had placed, displayed cones or removed the Jetta from the location sooner is speculative and insufficient to raise an issue of fact, because it is undisputed that Ripoli fell asleep before his vehicle rear- ended the Jetta … . McLean v Ripoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 00461, First Dept 1-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PROXIMATE CAUSE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

January 25, 2018

Municipal Law, Negligence

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY CREATED THE ROADWAY SINKHOLE BY INADEQUATE REPAIR, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs had raised a question of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition, a sinkhole in the roadway, which caused plaintiffs injuries after a wheel on their police car went into the hole:

… [P]laintiffs have met their burden of showing that there are triable issues of fact as to whether the City’s affirmative negligence created the defect … . Specifically, plaintiff’s testimony and affidavit demonstrate that the City attempted to repair the sinkhole on August 27, 2011. Moreover, the City has conceded based on the CAR report that it worked to fill the sinkhole on August 27, 2011 (eleven days prior to the accident) and August 28, 2011 (ten days prior to the accident). The affidavit of plaintiffs’ expert raises the issues of whether the City’s affirmative repair of the sinkhole negligently created a defective condition causing the repair to fail immediately after it was made. There is nothing in the record here to indicate that the dangerous condition in question developed over time … . Bania v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00470, First Dept 1-25-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY CREATED THE ROADWAY SINKHOLE BY INADEQUATE REPAIR, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY CREATED THE ROADWAY SINKHOLE BY INADEQUATE REPAIR, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SINKHOLES (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY CREATED THE ROADWAY SINKHOLE BY INADEQUATE REPAIR, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (SINKHOLES, MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY CREATED THE ROADWAY SINKHOLE BY INADEQUATE REPAIR, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT))

January 25, 2018

Contract Law, Medical Malpractice, Negligence

RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a release which related to a medical center and any joint tortfeasors did not preclude a medical malpractice action against doctors who were not employees of the medical center. The plaintiff had undergone surgery for a deviated septum. During the surgery plainitff’s teeth were damaged by the anesthesiologist, an employee of the medical center. The medical center settled with the plaintiff and plaintiff signed a release. The medical malpractice action against the surgeons was not related to the damaged teeth:

… [T]he release is unambiguously limited to tortfeasors jointly liable with the Medical Center. “At common law the joint and several liability imposed on joint tort-feasors was indivisible, and any one of the joint tort-feasors was liable to the injured party for the entire damage”… . A hospital is not vicariously liable for the malpractice of independently retained doctors who are not employees of the hospital or are not held out as agents of the hospital … . Here, the defendants do not contend that the defendant doctors were employees of the Medical Center, or that they held themselves out as agents of the Medical Center. As such, there would be no basis for joint liability with the Medical Center. Further, the injuries claimed in this action are different from those claimed against and settled with the Medical Center. The lost crown and broken teeth caused by the anesthesiologist, an employee of the Medical Center, are completely distinct from the damages claimed in this action. Hoffmann v Horn, 2018 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ( RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (RELEASES, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT)

January 24, 2018

Landlord-Tenant, Negligence

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF A LEAKING WATER HEATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant out of possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The lease imposed a duty to repair (here plaintiff slipped on water from a leaking water heater) and the landlord’s papers did not demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice:

An out-of-possession landlord and its agent are not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on leased premises in the absence of a statute imposing liability, a contractual provision placing the duty to repair on the landlord, or a course of conduct by the landlord giving rise to a duty … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. They submitted a copy of the lease, which established that Felice was required to remedy “any defective condition in any plumbing, heating system or electrical lines located in the demised premises” following prompt notice by the tenant. The defendants’ submissions, however, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact, including whether they had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective hot water heater, thereby placing upon them the duty to repair it pursuant to the lease. Accordingly, the motion was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Irizarry v Felice Realty Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00415, Second Dept 1-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF A LEAKING WATER HEATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF A LEAKING WATER HEATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF A LEAKING WATER HEATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF A LEAKING WATER HEATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

January 24, 2018

Insurance Law, Negligence

INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant insurance broker’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged, under a negligence theory, that the broker failed to procure sufficient uninsured motorist coverage. The papers submitted by the broker failed to demonstrate the amount of coverage requested was procured. Therefore the motion should have been denied without consideration of the opposing papers:

An insurance broker may be held liable under theories of breach of contract or negligence for failing to procure insurance upon a showing by the insured that the agent or broker failed to discharge the duties imposed by the agreement to obtain insurance, either by proof that it breached the agreement or because it failed to exercise due care in the transaction … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they submitted insufficient evidence that they procured the amount of coverage that the plaintiff engaged them to procure … . Giamundo v Cleveland Dunn 2nd, 2018 NY Slip Op 00411, Second Dept 1-24-18

INSURANCE LAW (INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE BROKER (NEGLIGENCE, (INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

January 24, 2018

Landlord-Tenant, Negligence

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS NOT LIABLE FOR SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlords’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this sidewalk slip and fall case:

Defendants cannot be held liable for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when he slipped on snow and ice on the sidewalk adjacent to their property, because they were out-of-possession landlords with no contractual obligation to keep the sidewalks clear of snow and ice, and the presence of snow and ice does not constitute a significant structural or design defect … . Xiang Fu He v Troon Mgt., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00382, First Dept 1-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS NOT LIABLE FOR SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS NOT LIABLE FOR SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS NOT LIABLE FOR SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS NOT LIABLE FOR SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT))/OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS NOT LIABLE FOR SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT))

January 23, 2018

Contract Law, Negligence

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive, substantive, two-justice partial dissent, determined there were questions of fact whether an opening in the floor constituted an open and obvious condition and whether the contractor (Harbour) which removed an obsolete tank, exposing the opening, was liable to plaintiff for “launching an instrument of harm.” Plaintiff was working near the opening, facing away from it, when he stepped back into the opening and fell. Plaintiff had taken a picture of the opening months before and shown it to the property owner’s manager. The dissenting justices argued that the contract between Harbour and the property owner did not obligate it to repair the opening which was revealed when the tank was removed and, therefore, Harbour did not breach a duty of care owed to plaintiff:

Even if Harbour’s contract did not require that it cover, remediate, fill in or repair any of the floor openings resulting from its work, Harbour did not take even minimal corrective measures to protect the exposed opening in the floor after it removed the obsolete oil tank. Thus, while its removal of the tank was in fulfillment of its contractual obligation, a reasonable jury could find that Harbour’s leaving an exposed and unprotected opening in the floor exposed, caused or created a dangerous condition even if previously the metal plate containing the opening was not unsafe. The dissent’s view relies on cases where the defendant did not owe a duty of care because the condition the plaintiff complained of was precisely what was called for in the defendant’s contract … . … There is a view of the facts that Harbour, by leaving the exposed opening without any kind of warning or minimal protection, created or caused an unsafe condition, or made the previously obscured opening in the metal plate “less safe” than before Harbour did its work … . Thus the issue is not whether Harbour had a contractual obligation to protect the opening, but whether by leaving the opening in the metal plate exposed it created an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff. Farrugia v 1440 Broadway Assoc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00347, First Dept 1-18-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ESPINAL, TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/LAUNCH INSTRUMENT OF HARM (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY BASED UPON CONTRACT, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY BASED UPON CONTRACT, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT))

January 18, 2018

Evidence, Medical Malpractice, Negligence

PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages in a medical malpractice action stemming from the defendant doctor’s (Mercado’s) destruction of handwritten notes made at the time plaintiff’s decedent was seen by the doctor. Plaintiff’s decedent, a child, Claudialee, died as a result of Mercado’s failure to diagnose diabetes:

… [W]e now hold that where, as here, a plaintiff recovers compensatory damages for a medical professional’s malpractice, a plaintiff may also recover punitive damages for that medical professional’s act of altering or destroying medical records in an effort to evade potential medical malpractice liability. Allowing an award of punitive damages for a medical professional’s act of altering or destroying medical records in an effort to evade potential medical malpractice liability will serve to deter medical professionals from engaging in such wrongful conduct, punish medical professionals who engage in such conduct, and express public condemnation of such conduct. Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury … . Gomez v Cabatic, 2018 NY Slip Op 00278, Second Dept 1-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DESTRUCTION OF WRITTEN NOTES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))

January 17, 2018

Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Negligence

THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the complaint sounded in medical malpractice, not common law negligence, and was therefore untimely. Plaintiff alleged she fell off a stretcher as she was being positioned for a chest X-ray. The attempt to amend the complaint to allege a negligent hiring cause of action failed because the facts underlying negligent hiring were not the same as the facts underlying the original complaint. Therefore the relation-back doctrine did not apply:

As described by plaintiff in her affidavit, the technician’s conduct in placing plaintiff’s body in a certain position, so as to obtain accurate imaging in an Xray directed by a physician at defendant hospital, bore a “substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician” … . Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint sounds in medical malpractice and was correctly dismissed as untimely (see CPLR 214-a). …

CPLR 203(f) provides, “A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” … .

The original complaint asserts one cause of action that arose from plaintiff’s Xray on July 5, 2012. The proposed negligent hiring and failure to promulgate regulations claims arise from different facts and implicate different duties based on conduct preceding, and separate and different from, the alleged negligence of the Xray technician on that date. Thus, the relation back doctrine is inapplicable because the facts alleged in the original complaint failed to give notice of the facts necessary to support the amended pleading … . Lang-Salgado v Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00248, First Dept 1-16-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ( THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 214-a (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 203 (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))

January 16, 2018

Negligence

ABUTTING LANDOWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK, NO COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine defendant, owner of a building abutting the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, was entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged she tripped on a metal protrusion or sign post stump on the public sidewalk:

… [W]e find that defendant established that its employees did not create the alleged defect by submitting the deposition testimony of its part-owner that defendant performed no work to the subject section of the sidewalk before the accident … . The part-owner’s testimony also established that defendant lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition, because he testified that prior to plaintiff’s accident, he was unaware of any complaints or accidents on the sidewalk, and had received no violations concerning the sidewalk … . Schulman v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00266, First Dept 1-16-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, ABUTTING LANDOWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK, NO COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, ABUTTING LANDOWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK, NO COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, ABUTTING LANDOWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK, NO COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

January 16, 2018

TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT TOW TRUCK WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY CREATED THE ROADWAY SINKHOLE BY INADEQUATE REPAIR, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF A LEAKING WATER HEATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS NOT LIABLE FOR SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT).

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).

PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT).

THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

ABUTTING LANDOWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK, NO COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.