You are here: / Negligence

GUARANTOR OF A CRIMINALLY USURIOUS LOAN WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT, THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL IN PAIS DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Jarvis, who guaranteed payment on a note, was entitled to summary judgment because the loan was criminally usurious. The plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel in pais:

​

Jarvis established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the interest rate on the loan was criminally usurious; a loan that is criminally usurious is void … . In opposition to that prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The doctrine of estoppel in pais provides that “a borrower may be estopped from interposing a usury defense when, through a special relationship with the lender, the borrower induces reliance on the legality of the transaction. . . . Otherwise, a borrower could void the transaction, keep the principal, and achieve a total windfall, at the expense of an innocent person, through his own subterfuge and inequitable deception'” … . Here, the plaintiff did not submit any evidence of a special relationship … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in finding that triable issues of fact exist regarding the doctrine of estoppel in pais. Kingsize Entertainment, LLC v Martino, 2017 NY Slip Op 07986, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (USURY, GUARANTOR OF A CRIMINALLY USURIOUS LOAN WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT, THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL IN PAIS DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/USURY (GUARANTOR OF A CRIMINALLY USURIOUS LOAN WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT, THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL IN PAIS DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (USURY, GUARANTOR OF A CRIMINALLY USURIOUS LOAN WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT, THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL IN PAIS DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))

,

LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the landlord was not required to insulate the pipe leading to the radiator because the pipe was part of the heating system (which would have been impeded by insulation). Therefore the personal injury action stemming from infant plaintiff’s contact with the hot pipe was properly dismissed:

​

Dismissal of the complaint was warranted in this action for personal injuries sustained when infant plaintiff slipped off the bed and fell against hot pipes that conveyed steam to the radiators in the apartment. The court properly concluded that defendant did not violate its common-law duty to plaintiffs in failing to insulate the hot pipes … . Plaintiffs argue that because the pipes were not the primary source of heat to the apartment, insulation would not have interfered with the functionality of the heating system … . However, even plaintiffs’ expert acknowledged that the pipes were part of the heating system and supplied some heat to the room. P.R. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 07955, First Dept 11-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))/HEATING SYSTEMS  (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))

,

LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted in this personal injury action. The property was leased to plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff’s employer was doing construction work in the yard outside the building. Plaintiff fell into a hole dug by his employer in the yard. The lease imposed repair responsibilities on the landlord for the building only, not the yard:

​

The subject lease provided that defendant “shall maintain and repair the public portions of the building, both interior and exterior [and that]. . .[t]enant shall, throughout the term of this lease, take good care of the demised premises. . .and at its sole cost and expense, make all non-structural repairs. . .when needed to preserve them in good working order and condition.” Here, testimony established that the accident did not occur in a public portion of the building, but rather in the backyard that was exclusively controlled by plaintiff’s employer, thereby not implicating an area that defendant had retained the responsibility to maintain … . Similarly, the evidence demonstrated that, in actual practice, defendant did nothing to show that it had the authority to maintain or repair the accident premises … .

Furthermore, although the lease states that defendant had the right to reenter the premises to make repairs, plaintiff has failed to show that defendant violated a specific statutory safety provision, or that the hole in which he stepped was a structural defect … .

Plaintiff’s reference to an OSHA provision that was allegedly violated by defendant is unavailing, because defendant was not plaintiff’s employer … . Martinez v 3801 Equity Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 07938, First Dept 11-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S TRUCK WAS IN THE WRONG LANE, THE POSITION OF THE TRUCK FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC ON HIS MOTORCYCLE AT HIGH SPEED WHEN HE STRUCK A CAR, AND WAS THROWN UNDER THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant trucking company’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was weaving in and out of traffic at high speed on his motorcycle when he struck the rear of a car, was thrown under and tractor trailer, and run over by the rear wheels. The truck was in a lane where truck traffic was prohibited. The court held the position of the truck furnished the condition for the accident but was not the proximate cause of the accident:

​

Defendants made a prima facie showing that decedent’s negligent operation of the motorcycle caused the accident… . Further, although defendants acknowledge that the tractor-trailer was unlawfully in the left lane at the time of the accident … , there is no evidence in the record that would support a finding that the statutory violation was a proximate cause of the accident. The presence of the tractor-trailer in the left lane merely furnished the condition that led to decedent’s death, and was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Nor is there any nonspeculative basis for finding that defendant driver could have avoided the accident.

Plaintiffs failed to present evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether any negligence on the part of defendants was a substantial factor in causing the accident. Although plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to depose defendant driver, they failed to demonstrate the existence of any testimony by defendant driver relevant to defendant’s summary judgment motion. Caro v Chesnick, 2017 NY Slip Op 07940, First Dept 11-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S TRUCK WAS IN THE WRONG LANE, THE POSITION OF THE TRUCK FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC ON HIS MOTORCYCLE AT HIGH SPEED WHEN HE STRUCK A CAR, AND WAS THROWN UNDER THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PROXIMATE CAUSE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S TRUCK WAS IN THE WRONG LANE, THE POSITION OF THE TRUCK FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC ON HIS MOTORCYCLE AT HIGH SPEED WHEN HE STRUCK A CAR, AND WAS THROWN UNDER THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT))/CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PROXIMATE CAUSE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S TRUCK WAS IN THE WRONG LANE, THE POSITION OF THE TRUCK FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC ON HIS MOTORCYCLE AT HIGH SPEED WHEN HE STRUCK A CAR, AND WAS THROWN UNDER THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT))/PROXIMATE CAUSE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PROXIMATE CAUSE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S TRUCK WAS IN THE WRONG LANE, THE POSITION OF THE TRUCK FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC ON HIS MOTORCYCLE AT HIGH SPEED WHEN HE STRUCK A CAR, AND WAS THROWN UNDER THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kern, determined plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their defective design cause of action in this products liability case. The product is a “fire pot” which burns a gel poured into a cup. Apparently the gel exploded. There was expert testimony that it is difficult to see whether the gel is burning and reloading the gel while it is burning will cause it to explode:

​

… [P]laintiffs have established, as a matter of law, that the product at issue, consisting of the fire pot and the fuel gel, was defectively designed so that it was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ injuries. Plaintiffs have submitted evidence, including expert affidavits, demonstrating that the product has minimal utility, serving a purely decorative purpose, that it poses an extraordinary safety risk in that it can explode and propel flaming fuel gel onto persons in its vicinity and cause them to catch fire when a person attempts to light the fire pot with the fuel gel while the fire pot is already lit or hot, that when the fuel gel in the fire pot is lit but burns down, it has a nearly invisible flame, which can mislead users into perceiving the flame as extinguished and the fuel gel exhausted, that the viscosity of the fuel gel makes it easily adherent to skin and clothing which makes it very difficult to extinguish and that alternative and safer designs are available in that instead of designing the fire pot with a deep-seated stainless steel cup into which the fuel gel is poured, the product could have been designed using fuel gel in nonrefillable metal cans or cartridges that get inserted directly into the fire pot, which would eliminate the design defect that causes an explosion upon refueling the fire pot with the fuel gel as well as the related dangers flowing from the fuel gel flame being difficult to visually discern when the fuel gel burns down and the viscosity of the fuel gel. Finally, the experts opined that the defective design of the product was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ injuries.

In opposition, defendant has failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the product was designed in a reasonably safe manner or whether the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ injuries.  M.H. v Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07790, First Dept 11-9-17

​

 

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE (FIRST DEPT))/DESIGN, DEFECTIVE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE (FIRST DEPT))

,

TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the traffic control measures taken by the defendants doing work on or near a road furnished the condition for the accident but was not the proximate cause of the accident. Defendant driver swerved to avoid a rear-end collision with a car that made a sudden left turn. The driver struck plaintiff, who was standing in the parking lane getting ready to cross the street:

​

Even assuming, arguendo, that the accident occurred within a “work zone” ,,, and defendants-appellants were negligent in the design and placement of temporary traffic control … , … we conclude that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident … . “A showing of negligence is not enough; there must also be proof that the negligence was a proximate cause of the event that produced the harm” … . We reject plaintiffs’ contention that the temporary traffic control at the site was a proximate cause of the accident. Any negligence with respect to the construction work merely furnished the condition or occasion for plaintiff being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street and was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Gregory v Cavarello, 2017 NY Slip Op 07791, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, (TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ROAD WORK, TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC CONTROL (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/PROXIMATE CAUSE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/HIGHWAYS (TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS PARKING LOT FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village’s motion for summary judgment in this front-end loader/pedestrian accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when the front-end loader backed up over her in a municipal parking lot at night. The parking lot was deemed a “highway” for purposes of the applicability of the “reckless disregard for safety” standard for machinery used in highway work. But the Third Department held there were questions of fact about whether the reckless disregard standard was met. The court noted that the usual safety precautions used during the day were not used at night, when the accident occurred:

​

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) provides that the safety rules and regulations governing the operation of vehicles upon highways (i.e., the “rules of the road”) will “not apply to persons, teams, motor vehicles, and other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway . . . [or] to hazard vehicles while actually engaged in hazardous operation on or adjacent to a highway” . … [T]he Legislature has provided vehicles engaged in such road work the benefit of a lesser standard of care … — rather than having to establish ordinary negligence, an injured plaintiff seeking damages must instead demonstrate that “any person . . . [or] operator of a motor vehicle or other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” acted with a “reckless disregard for the safety of others” … . * * *

​

While we agree with Supreme Court that the [parking] lot constituted a highway so as to invoke the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), that determination, standing alone, did not serve to insulate defendants from all potential liability for their actions that evening and entitle them to summary judgment. … Given [the] acknowledgment that the Village had a safety zone policy in place that called for the establishment of work zones when heavy machinery was being operated in parking lots during the daytime and chose not to implement it during nighttime operations, [the] candid testimony that a flagperson would have been helpful and may have been able to stop plaintiff before she crossed behind the loader and the lack of any admissible expert opinion dispositive of defendants’ claim that it did not act with recklessness, defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law … . Freitag v Village of Potsdam, 2017 NY Slip Op 07919, Third Dept 11-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/HIGHWAYS (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS PARKING LOT FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/PARKING LOTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS PARKING LOT FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESS DISREGARD, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the city’s motion for summary judgment was properly dismissed in this traffic accident case involving a police car. The court held that the officer was engaged in an emergency operation when he went through a red light at an intersection and struck plaintiff’s car. Even if the siren and emergency lights were not on, the officer was authorized to proceed through the intersection:

​

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted since the record shows that defendant Kohler, a police officer, was operating a police vehicle while performing an emergency operation and did not recklessly disregard the safety of others before the accident happened … . The fact that Koehler was mistaken in believing that plaintiff was stopping her vehicle when he proceeded to pass through the red light did not render his conduct reckless. Koehler testified that as he approached the intersection, he reduced his speed and looked left and right. He was traveling approximately 10 miles above the speed limit when the accident occurred. Koehler attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiff by braking hard and turning the steering wheel to the right upon realizing that plaintiff’s vehicle had entered the intersection … . The fact that there is a question as to whether the police vehicle’s lights and siren were activated is not material because Koehler was not required to activate either of these devices in order to be entitled to the statutory privilege of passing through a red light … . Lewis v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 07785, First Dept 11-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (EMERGENCY OPERATION, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EMERGENCY OPERATION, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY OPERATION (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/SIREN (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY LIGHTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))

,

PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s negligence cause of action against the school district and another student were properly dismissed under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiff, a student, was injured in a basketball game during gym class when he was allegedly kicked by the student defendant. Plaintiff chose to play basketball among other possible activities. Therefore he could not take advantage of the “inherent compulsion” doctrine. Plaintiff’s assertion at the 50-h hearing that he was intentionally kicked did not raise a question of fact because the pleadings did not include an intentional tort or any mention of intentional conduct:

​

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . “[B]y freely assuming a known risk, a plaintiff commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him or her from the risk” … . If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, the plaintiff has consented to them and the defendant has performed its duty… . However, a plaintiff will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff voluntarily engaged in the activity of basketball and was aware of the risks inherent in the activity, including the possibility of contact or collision with other participants… …

Also contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, he did not raise a triable issue of fact as to the application of the inherent compulsion doctrine, which “provides that the defense of assumption of the risk is not a shield from liability, even where the injured party acted despite obvious and evident risks, when the element of voluntariness is overcome by the compulsion of a superior” … . The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he chose to play basketball from a number of options. Consequently, the inherent compulsion doctrine is inapplicable … . Hanson v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 07711, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/GYM CLASS EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted. An employee of defendant moving company (Fisher) left a desk that was upright (on its side) on a dolly unattended. The desk fell over, injuring plaintiff:

​

“A trial court’s grant of a CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party” … . In considering the motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the court must afford the nonmoving party “every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented” … . …

The defendants do not dispute that they, through their employee, created the condition that the plaintiff alleges existed. There was no evidence, and the defendants did not assert, that Fisher exercised reasonable care when he left the desk unattended on the dolly. The defendants’ contention that an issue of fact existed as to whether the accident happened at all is unsupported by the record and based upon speculation … . Based on this record, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the evidence … . Canale v L & M Assoc. of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07701, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4401 (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (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