You are here: / Negligence
, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the golf-course sprinkler-valve-hole, which caused plaintiff’s decedent to trip and fall, was concealed or unreasonably increased the risks inherent in the golf course, thereby overcoming the assumption of risk doctrine. Supreme Court should not have excluded the photographs of the area where plaintiff fell. Contrary to Supreme Court’s reasoning, the person who authenticated the photographs was a not a notice witness who should have been named prior to the filing of the note of issue:

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the subject condition was concealed or unreasonably increased the risks inherent in the golf course … In this regard, the Supreme Court erred in rejecting the affidavits and photographic evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion. Contrary to the court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to identify John Flower as a notice witness prior to filing the note of issue. The disclosure requirements of CPLR 3101 include the obligation to disclose the names of witnesses “if they are material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action” … . Here, Flower did not possess information material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action. In his affidavit, Flower merely authenticated certain photographs, most of which had been submitted by the decedent with his notice of claim prior to his death. Consequently, the court should not have rejected Flower’s affidavit and the attendant photographs on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to identify Flower as a notice witness prior to the filing of the note of issue. As a related matter, the court improperly rejected the affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert on the ground that he relied upon the photographs. Further, the court should not have rejected the two remaining affidavits from individuals who were disclosed to the defendant prior to the filing of the note of issue. MacIsaac v Nassau County, 2017 NY Slip Op 05814, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE WITNESS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/EVIDENCE (NOTICE WITNESS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (GOLF, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/GOLF (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/PHOTOGRAPHS (EVIDENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/NOTICE WITNESS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)

PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether defendant had actual or or constructive notice of the black ice which caused plaintiff to fall. There was precipitation earlier on the day plaintiff fell:

“A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the black ice that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall developed as a result of precipitation that fell on the day of the accident, and that the defendant did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the existence of the black ice… . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly considered her deposition transcript in determining the motion … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the black ice was the product of a prior storm … . Vozzo v Fairfield Westlake Sq., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05868, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have granted. Although plaintiff and defendant alleged defendant’s car was stopped behind  plaintiff’s car before defendant’s car was pushed into plaintiff’s car after defendant’s car was struck from behind by Vitale’s car, Vitale’s affidavit alleged defendant’s car collided with plaintiff’s car before Vitale collided with defendant. Therefore there was a question of fact whether defendant was comparatively negligent:

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff driver and the defendant driver. The plaintiff driver testified at his deposition that the vehicle that he was operating had been stopped for a red traffic light for about 30 seconds when the defendants’ vehicle struck it in the rear. Prior to the accident, the plaintiff driver had observed the defendants’ vehicle stop behind his vehicle without touching it. The defendant driver attested that the vehicle that he was operating was stopped four feet behind the plaintiffs’ stopped vehicle when it was struck in the rear by Vitale’s vehicle. As a result, the defendants’ vehicle was propelled forward into the rear of the plaintiffs’ vehicle. Under the circumstances, the defendants met their initial burden as the movants by demonstrating, prima facie, that their stopped vehicle was propelled forward into the plaintiffs’ vehicle after their vehicle was struck in the rear by a third vehicle, and that the defendant driver was not at fault in the happening of the accident … .

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, Vitale’s affidavit. Vitale’s account of the accident differed from the parties’ account of the accident, and it raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants’ vehicle struck the plaintiffs’ vehicle before Vitale’s vehicle struck the defendants’ vehicle and whether the defendant driver was comparatively at fault … .Hasan Sharif Williams v Sala, 2017 NY Slip Op 05762, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-END COLLISIONS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant raised a question of fact whether the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger was comparatively negligent. Therefore plaintiff passenger’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted:

“To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff must establish, prima facie, not only that the opposing party was negligent, but also that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault” … . Thus, “a plaintiff has a twofold burden that trial courts must bear in mind when determining motions for summary judgment, because more than one actor may be a proximate cause of a single accident” … . The issue of comparative fault is generally a question for the jury to decide … . In rear-end accident cases, just because a plaintiff is a passenger in the lead vehicle, the liability of the rear vehicle is not automatically established. Such a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability “must meet the twofold burden of establishing that he or she was free from comparative fault and was, instead, an innocent passenger, and, separately, that the operator of the rear vehicle was at fault. If the plaintiff fails to demonstrate, prima facie, that the operator of the offending vehicle was at fault, or if triable issues of fact are raised by the defendants in opposition, . . . summary judgment on the issue of liability must be denied, even if the moving plaintiff was an innocent passenger” …

Here, the injured plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the submission of her affidavit which demonstrated that she was not negligent in the happening of the accident, as she was an innocent passenger, and that the actions of the defendant driver, Welna, were the sole proximate cause of the accident… . However, in opposition, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Nicole Ortiz [the lead driver] contributed to the happening of the accident by the submission of Welna’s affidavit, which alleged that she violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 by stopping abruptly in the intersection to turn left without signaling … . Ortiz v Welna, 2017 NY Slip Op 05744, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT)/REAR END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (REAR END COLLISIONS, LEAD DRIVER’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO SIGNAL AND SUDDEN STOP RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT) 

STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined defendant Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The storm in progress rule did not apply because the precipitation stopped 12 hours before the fall, and the temperature dipped below freezing 10 hours before the fall:

Home Depot failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that there was a storm in progress at the time of the injured plaintiff’s accident or that it did not have a reasonable opportunity after the cessation of the storm to remedy the allegedly dangerous condition … . The climatological data submitted by Home Depot showed that there was an accumulation of about three inches of snow, which had ceased to fall by 7:00 p.m. on January 18, 2004, about 12 hours prior to the accident, and that the temperature dropped to below freezing by 9:00 p.m., about 10 hours prior to the accident, and remained below freezing through the time of the accident. Thus, Home Depot failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have a reasonable time to ameliorate the snow and ice condition in the parking lot … . Morris v Home Depot USA, 2017 NY Slip Op 05717, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT)/STORM IN PROGRESS (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER WAS LIABLE FOR A LATENT DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE STEP UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a latent defect was actionable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. An outside step flipped up when plaintiff stepped on it, causing plaintiff to fall. The underside of the step was rotten and the nails didn’t hold. Apparently the condition of the step was not visible until the underside was exposed:

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur … . “Under appropriate circumstances, the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be invoked to allow the factfinder to infer negligence from the mere happening of an event” … . A plaintiff makes a prima facie case of negligence under res ipsa loquitur by establishing three elements: ” (1) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff'” … . Res ipsa loquitur does not create a presumption of negligence; rather, it is a rule of circumstantial evidence that permits, but does not require, the jury to infer negligence … ​

Here, the defendant contends that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the applicability of the doctrine because the homeowner did not have exclusive control over the deck steps. However, the concept of exclusive control does not require rigid application, since the general purpose of the element is to indicate from the circumstances that it was probably the negligence of the defendant, rather than another, which caused the accident … . Although there was evidence that other guests used the deck steps, the steps were located on private residential property, not an area open to the general public … . Under these circumstances, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to the homeowner’s exclusive control of the deck step and whether an inference of negligence is warranted under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur … . Marinaro v Reynolds, 2017 NY Slip Op 05714, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHEN HOMEOWNER WAS LIABLE FOR A LATENT DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE STEP UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR 2ND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHEN HOMEOWNER WAS LIABLE FOR A LATENT DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE STEP UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR 2ND DEPT)/LATENT DEFECT  (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHEN HOMEOWNER WAS LIABLE FOR A LATENT DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE STEP UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR 2ND DEPT)/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (SLIP AND FALL, LATENT DEFECT, QUESTION OF FACT WHEN HOMEOWNER WAS LIABLE FOR A LATENT DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE STEP UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR 2ND DEPT)

DEFECT WHICH CAUSED SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants demonstrated the defective tile which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall constituted a trivial defect which was not actionable:

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion included photos of the alleged defective condition as identified by the plaintiff, a damaged piece of tile, as well as measurements placing the depression at the damaged tile to be, at most, one-eighth of an inch. These photographs, along with the plaintiff’s description of the time, place, and circumstance of the injury, established, prima facie, that the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law, and therefore, not actionable … . Kavanagh v Archdiocese of the City of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 05711, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, TRIVIAL DEFECT, DEFECT WHICH CAUSED SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW 2ND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (TRIVIAL DEFECT, DEFECT WHICH CAUSED SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW 2ND DEPT)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFECT WHICH CAUSED SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW 2ND DEPT)

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RAISED BRICK WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT OR AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not demonstrate the raised brick over which plaintiff allegedly tripped was a trivial defect or an open and obvious defect:

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law. “A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risk it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … . In support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the Director of Horticulture of the defendant, the affidavit of an expert witness, and two photographs that the plaintiff claimed showed her lying on the walkway shortly after her accident but did not portray the raised brick on which she allegedly fell. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmovant …, the evidence submitted by the defendant failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to the dimensions of the alleged defect, and failed to establish that the condition was trivial and, therefore, not actionable … . The defendant also failed to make a prima facie showing that the alleged raised brick was an open and obvious condition that is inherent to the nature of the property and could be reasonably anticipated by those using it … . Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the allegedly raised brick … . Chojnacki v Old Westbury Gardens, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05706, 2nd Dept 7-191-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RAISED BRICK WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT OR AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RAISED BRICK WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT OR AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RAISED BRICK WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT OR AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RAISED BRICK WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT OR AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined defendants were properly granted summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case. The defendants demonstrated there was a storm in progress and their snow removal efforts did not create or exacerbate the condition:

” Under the so-called storm in progress’ rule, a property owner will not be held responsible for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow and ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm'” … . “However, even if a storm is ongoing, once a property owner elects to remove snow or ice, it must do so with reasonable care or it could be held liable for creating a hazardous condition or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting their deposition testimony and certified weather reports, which demonstrated that there was a storm in progress at the time of the plaintiff’s accident, and that their efforts to prevent ice accumulation neither created a hazardous condition nor exacerbated a natural hazard created by the storm … . Bradshaw v PEL 300 Assoc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05701, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/STORM IN PROGRESS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

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

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

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

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

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