You are here: / Negligence
,

MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant’s (Queens Ballpark’s) motion to dismiss this slip and fall action, based on documentary evidence, was properly denied. The documents did not conclusively establish that defendant did not create the condition which caused the sidewalk slip and fall, and did not establish that had not assumed the landowner’s responsibility to maintain a safe sidewalk by the terms of the lease:

Pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(a), “the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk” has a duty “to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.” “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk[] . . . shall be liable for any injury to property or personal injury, including death, proximately caused by the failure of such owner to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition” (id. § 7-210[b]). “As a general rule, the provisions of a lease obligating a tenant to repair the sidewalk do not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party”… . “However, where a lease agreement is so comprehensive and exclusive as to sidewalk maintenance as to entirely displace the landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk, the tenant may be liable to a third party” … .

Here, the documentary evidence submitted by Queens Ballpark failed to utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law … . Further, Queens Ballpark failed to establish conclusively that the plaintiff had no cause of action … . In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Queens Ballpark created the alleged defect in the sidewalk, and that Queens Ballpark was liable pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-210 for failing to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe manner. Queens Ballpark’s evidence, namely, excerpts from its lease of the parking lot, photographs of the sidewalk, and an affidavit from the Executive Director of Ballpark Operations for Queens Ballpark, did not address whether Queens Ballpark created the alleged defect, or whether Queens Ballpark had entirely displaced the landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk such that Queens Ballpark could be held liable to the plaintiff under Administrative Code § 7-210 … . Torres v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06096, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALK, MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALK, MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS,  MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Plaintiff, a student living in defendant’s on-campus housing, was injured when a globe from an overhead light fell on her. The defendant college demonstrated it did not created the dangerous condition and did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition:

The plaintiff was a student at the defendant, Long Island University, and resided at its on-campus housing facility in Brooklyn. During the evening of November 5, 2010, a glass globe fell from a ceiling lighting fixture in the plaintiff’s room onto her head. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries or have actual or constructive notice of it … . Williamson v Long Is. Univ., 2017 NY Slip Op 06100, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT))

NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL THE STAIRCASE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendants demonstrated they did not own, occupy or control the area where plaintiff slipped and fell. Therefore the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiff:

“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty owed by a defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and that such breach was a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff” … . Where there is no duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, there can be no breach, and thus, no liability can be imposed upon the defendant … . Liability for a dangerous condition on property is generally predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property… . The existence of one or more of these elements is sufficient to give rise to a duty of care… . Where none is present, “[generally] a party cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the allegedly defective condition” … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a duty to the plaintiff by demonstrating that they did not own, occupy, or control the area where the subject accident occurred, and thus, that they did not have a duty to maintain the staircase on the date of the accident. Donatien v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06061, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL THE STAIRCASE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL THE STAIRCASE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL (SECOND DEPT))/DUTY OF CARE (SLIP AND FALL, NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL THE STAIRCASE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged that he fell off the edge of a service ramp in an area where trucks were unloaded. The plaintiff was unable to raise a question of fact about whether the ramp was negligently designed or maintained. There were no building code or other safety code provisions which were violated, or even applicable:

​

Defendants’ expert report stated that the Building Code applicable to the premises, which was enacted in 1968 … , was silent concerning the components of a loading dock, delivery truck parking, material loading and unloading, and in regard to an access ramp between the truck parking floor and the top of the loading dock. As a result, the expert concluded, the ramp did not violate the Building Code. The expert also concluded that because the service ramp was not part of the required egress from the loading dock area, those parts of the Building Code applicable to “Means of Egress” did not apply.

Based on his conclusion that the Building Code did not contain sections specifically applicable to the instant facts, defendants’ expert reviewed the standards promulgated by OSHA. He concluded, however, that no section of OSHA applied to the instant facts. He also found that National Fire Protection Agency “Life Safety Code” did not apply to the instant facts. Defendants’ expert opined that the portion of the curb of the ramp where plaintiff was alleged to have tripped was not a foreseeable pedestrian path, since it runs parallel, not across the path of pedestrians walking up and down the ramp. He noted that the use of bright yellow paint to alert pedestrians to the presence of walkway conditions was proper and in compliance with the American Society for Testing and Materials. Overall, defendants’ expert concluded that plaintiff had not cited to any valid authority in support of his contention that the ramp caused the accident, and established that the ramp did not violate any standards referenced by plaintiff’s expert in his expert exchange.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to any negligence on the part of defendant … . Schmidt v One N.Y. Plaza Co. LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06047, First Dept 8-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, RAMP, PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, BUILDING AND SAFETY CODES, PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (RAMP, PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT))/BUILDING CODES (SLIP AND FALL, RAMPS, PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT))/SAFETY CODES (SLIP AND FALL, RAMPS., PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the county did not demonstrate it did not create the obstruction of the sidewalk with snow and further did not demonstrate the obstruction was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff alleged the snow in the sidewalk forced her to walk in the street, where she was struck by a car:

” Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by an improperly maintained street or sidewalk unless it has received written notice of the defect, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies'” … . As relevant here, an exception to the prior written notice laws exists where the municipality creates the defective condition through an affirmative act of negligence … . ” The prima facie showing that [a municipality is] obligated to make on its motion for summary judgment [is] governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff[ ] in the pleadings and bill of particulars'” … . Here, the plaintiffs alleged that the County affirmatively caused or contributed to the dangerous condition through its snow plowing operations on Old Country Road that caused snow to be deposited onto the sidewalk. Therefore, to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the County was required to establish, prima facie, that it did not receive prior written notice of the dangerous condition and that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition … . Although the County demonstrated, prima facie, that it did not receive prior written notice, the County’s submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that its snow removal operations did not create or exacerbate a dangerous condition … .

The County also failed to make a prima facie showing that its alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. “Where the acts of a third person intervene between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury, the causal connection is not automatically severed” … . “An intervening act constitutes a superseding cause sufficient to relieve a defendant of liability if it is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct'” … . Where, however, “the intervening act is a natural and foreseeable consequence of a circumstance created by the defendant, the causal nexus is not severed and liability will subsist” … . The issue of whether an act is foreseeable is generally for the trier of fact … . Here, the County’s alleged negligent snow plowing operations contributed to the obstruction of the sidewalk, which prevented Piazza [plaintiff] from continuing to walk on the sidewalk, and caused her to walk in the roadway where she was hit by a vehicle driven by Volpe. Under these circumstances, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Volpe’s act in hitting Piazza with her vehicle was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the County’s alleged negligence. Piazza v Volpe, 2017 NY Slip Op 05986, Second Dept 8-2-17

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW,  PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the medical malpractice (2 1/2 year) rather than the negligence (3 year) statute of limitations applied to this action stemming from the alleged failure to restrain a patient (plaintiff’s decedent) with dementia. The patient was injured when she fell. The court held the action was governed by the medical malpractice limitations period and was therefore untimely:

​

“The distinction between ordinary negligence and malpractice turns on whether the acts or omissions complained of involve a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons or whether the conduct complained of can instead be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of the facts” … . Generally, a claim will be deemed to sound in medical malpractice “when the challenged conduct constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician'” … . Thus, when the complaint challenges a medical facility’s performance of functions that are “an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment” and diagnosis to a patient, such as taking a medical history and determining the need for restraints, the action sounds in medical malpractice… .

… The defendants’ evidence showed that on April 12, 2009, the plaintiff’s decedent, Ruby Bell (hereinafter the decedent), was admitted to New Island Hospital with a history of dementia, and placed on “Fall Prevention Protocol.” After the decedent was found standing at her bedside trying to remove her foley catheter, a physician ordered that she be restrained with a vest and wrist restraints. On the morning of April 18, 2009, the decedent was discovered sitting on the floor next to her bed. The bed’s side rails were up and the decedent was not aware of how she came to be on the floor. She had apparently fallen while trying to climb out of her bed. Thereafter, the decedent was diagnosed with a distal radius fracture of the right forearm. The plaintiff alleged that this incident arose out of the failure of the defendants’ staff to follow the physician’s order to restrain her … .

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the allegations at issue essentially challenged the defendants’ assessment of the decedent’s supervisory and treatment needs … . Bell v WSNCHS N., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05937, 2nd Dept 8-2-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION WITH PROOF AN ACT OR OMISSION DECREASED THE CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO TIMELY DETECT THE PRESENCE OF CANCER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a detailed, fact-based decision, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact in this medical malpractice action alleging the failure to timely diagnose the presence of cancer. The court noted that the proximate cause element can be satisfied by evidence early detection could have extended plaintiff’s decedent’s life, even if a total cure was not possible:

​

“In a medical malpractice action, where causation is often a difficult issue, a plaintiff need do no more than offer sufficient evidence from which a reasonable person might conclude that it was more probable than not that the injury was caused by the defendant” … . “As to causation, the plaintiff’s evidence may be deemed legally sufficient even if its expert cannot quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased his injury, as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased his injury”   * * * To raise a triable issue of fact, a plaintiff need not establish that, but for a defendant doctor’s failure to diagnose, the patient would have been cured. “Curing cancer, while an ultimate and worthy aspiration, is not the only positive treatment outcome. Whether a diagnostic delay affected a patient’s prognosis is typically an issue that should be presented to a jury” … . Neyman v Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 05962, Second Dept 8-2-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION WITH PROOF AN ACT OR OMISSION DECREASED THE CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO TIMELY DETECT THE PRESENCE OF CANCER (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CAUSATION, CANCER, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION WITH PROOF AN ACT OR OMISSION DECREASED THE CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO TIMELY DETECT THE PRESENCE OF CANCER (SECOND DEPT))/CANCER (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CAUSATION, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION WITH PROOF AN ACT OR OMISSION DECREASED THE CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO TIMELY DETECT THE PRESENCE OF CANCER (SECOND DEPT))

,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BASED ON A VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN VEHICLE TO WORK AND WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff motorcyclist was not entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. Although defendant did move into the plaintiff’s lane ahead of plaintiff in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, conflicting deposition testimony about whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent (i.e., whether plaintiff had time to react) raised a question of fact. Defendant’s employer was entitled to summary judgment because defendant was driving to work in his own vehicle, and was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident:

​

A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield … . However, a driver with the right-of-way also has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision … , and “[t]here can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” … . As a result, even where there is evidence that another driver involved in the accident was negligent as a matter of law due to a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative fault … . …

​

The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment'” … . ” An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment'”… . Generally, “[a]n employee driving to and from work is not acting within the scope of his employment because the element of control is lacking” … .

[Defendant’s] deposition testimony demonstrated that, at the time of the accident, he was commuting to work from his home in his personal vehicle, he was not required to drive to work as part of his job, and he was not acting in furtherance of his employer’s business at the time …. . Beres v Terranera, 2017 NY Slip Op 05929, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BASED ON A VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN VEHICLE TO WORK AND WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BASED ON A VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN VEHICLE TO WORK AND WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS (EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BASED ON A VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN VEHICLE TO WORK AND WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, VICARIOUS LIABILITY, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN VEHICLE TO WORK AND WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE PROPERLY GRANTED TO THE SCHOOL IN THIS BASEBALL-RELATED SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the assumption of the risk doctrine supported summary judgment in favor of the school. Plaintiff, a volunteer assisting the baseball coaching staff of his son’s team, slipped and fell on a tile covering a grate on the field while attempting to retrieve a ball. The baseball field is on school grounds:

​

According to the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, “when an individual voluntarily participates in a sport or recreational activity, he or she consents to those commonly appreciated risks that are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from participation therein” … . “This encompasses risks associated with the construction of the playing field, and any open and obvious conditions on it”… . “If the risks are known by or perfectly obvious to the participant, he or she has consented to them and the property owner has discharged its duty of care by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be”… .. ” It is not necessary . . . that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results'” … . Moreover, “[t]he participant’s awareness of risk is not to be determined in a vacuum. It is, rather, to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” … .

Here, the school defendants … established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that, on the date of his accident, he volunteered to assist the coaching staff at his son’s baseball practice. Not only had he visited this particular baseball field at least three prior times, he had also sat along the third-base foul line, which was close to the area where his accident occurred. The plaintiff had also served as an assistant baseball coach for his son’s baseball teams for five or six years. Although the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he had never observed the tile before slipping on it, the photographs that he took the day following his accident, which he contended accurately depicted the tile and the field the way they had looked on the day at issue, demonstrate that the approximately 12-inch by 12-inch white or creamish color tile, which contrasted starkly with the color of the grass, was an open and obvious condition. There was no evidence that the tile was defective … . Siegel v Albertus Magnus High Sch., 2017 NY Slip Op 05991, Second Depty 8-2-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE PROPERLY GRANTED TO THE SCHOOL IN THIS BASEBALL-RELATED SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE PROPERLY GRANTED TO THE SCHOOL IN THIS BASEBALL-RELATED SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (BASEBALL, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE PROPERLY GRANTED TO THE SCHOOL IN THIS BASEBALL-RELATED SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/BASEBALL (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE PROPERLY GRANTED TO THE SCHOOL IN THIS BASEBALL-RELATED SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE ICE CONDITION IN THE PARKING LOT AND WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the school’s motion for summary judgment in this parking lot slip and fall case was properly denied. Although the school alleged the parking lot had been sanded and salted, plaintiff testified the area near her car was a sheet of ice and she saw no evidence the area had been sanded or salted:

​

Contrary to the School District’s contention, it failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall…. A fair reading of the transcripts of the plaintiff’s testimony at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and at her deposition, both of which were submitted in support of the School District’s motion, showed that she slipped on a sheet of ice just outside her vehicle in the subject parking lot.

The plaintiff testified at the § 50-h hearing and at her deposition that there was no evidence of any salt or sand in the parking lot when she fell, while a representative for the School District averred in his affidavit in support of the motion that the School District salted and sanded the subject parking lot around 6:00 a.m. on the morning of the accident. Since the plaintiff testified that there was no evidence of any salt or sand in the parking lot when she fell, the School District failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it created or exacerbated a hazardous condition in the parking lot or whether it lacked constructive notice of the condition. Scott v North Bellmore Pub. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 05989, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE ICE CONDITION IN THE PARKING LOT AND WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE ICE CONDITION IN THE PARKING LOT AND WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (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