You are here: / Negligence
, ,

CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the city defendants did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff’s decedent (Rennix) despite the misconduct of a city employee. The city employee, an emergency medical technician (EMT) named Jackson, was in a restaurant when a restaurant employee collapsed. Because Jackson was not supposed to be on a break, she did not attempt to help plaintiff’s decedent, who died before the ambulance arrived. Rennix was pregnant and her baby also died. Because there was no special relationship between the city and plaintiff’s decedent, the city was not liable:

A municipal emergency response system is a governmental function, and thus where an emergency medical technician is alleged to have been negligent while acting in this governmental capacity, the municipality cannot be held liable unless it owed a “special duty” to the injured party … . There are three recognized situations in which a special duty may arise: “(1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” … .

The plaintiffs contend that the first category applies to the circumstances here, and a special duty arose from Jackson’s violation of Penal Law § 195.00(2), which criminalizes official misconduct. * * *

Even assuming the plaintiffs could establish that Jackson was guilty of misconduct, the violation of Penal Law § 195.00(2) does not give rise to a special duty so as to impose tort liability. For a special duty to arise from the breach of a statutory duty, the governing statute must authorize a private right of action … . A private right of action “may be fairly implied when (1) the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose of the governing statute; and (3) to do so would be consistent with the legislative scheme”… .

Here, the plaintiffs’ claim fails at the first step of the analysis, as Rennix was not of a class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted. Rennix v Jackson, 2017 NY Slip Op 05471, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT)/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT)

, ,

TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the trial judge’s responses to an inconsistent verdict were inadequate and ordered a new trial , granting defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. The jury, in this lead-paint poisoning case, found that the defendant property owner was negligent but that the negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury. However the jury went on to award plaintiff $250,000 in damages. The judge sent the jury back, instructing them that they could not award damages unless they found the negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries. The judge did not inform the jury they could adhere to their original finding on proximate cause. The jury returned a second verdict, this time finding defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries:

Here, the jury’s first verdict was internally inconsistent when it awarded damages to the plaintiff despite finding that the defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly directed the jury to reconsider the verdict. Notwithstanding, the record supports the conclusion that the second round of deliberations resulted in an unreliable verdict … . Specifically, the court failed to provide clear instructions to the jury regarding how to proceed with respect to the interrogatories concerning damages if it again found that the defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. This failure may have induced the jury to decide, out of confusion or frustration, to simply forgo the issue altogether by finding that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. Moreover, the court’s response to the jury note to simply follow the instructions on the new verdict sheet was inadequate. ” Even after reconsideration by the jury, a trial court has discretion to set aside a verdict which is clearly the product of substantial confusion among the jurors'” … . Under these circumstances, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to set aside the second jury verdict and directed a new trial … . Cleveland v Djeu, 2017 NY Slip Op 05417, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INCONSISTENT VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD PAINT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/LEAD PAINT (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INCONSISTENT VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S LANE CHANGE CONSTITUTED A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS REAR-END COLLISION, PLEA TO FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE ONLY IF THE VIOLATION IS UNEXCUSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted. Defendant raised a question of fact whether the cause of the accident was plaintiff’s sudden lane change. The fact that defendant pled guilty to a traffic violation, following too closely, would constitute negligence per se only if unexcused:

Plaintiff … submitted the deposition testimony of defendant, who stated that he did not see plaintiff’s vehicle until immediately before the accident, when plaintiff moved from the middle lane to the right lane and slammed on his brakes in an instant or quickly, i.e., plaintiff’s action was not a slow and cautious movement to which defendant could react … . Defendant explained that he had not seen plaintiff’s vehicle before the collision because he had been paying attention to the road in front of him and, when plaintiff engaged in his maneuver (changed lanes), defendant slammed on his brakes and tried to steer into the shoulder to avoid the accident, which caused the back end of the trailer that was attached to the truck to swing out, and the left corner of the truck struck plaintiff’s vehicle. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that plaintiff “failed to meet his initial burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law inasmuch as he submitted the deposition testimony in which [defendant] provided a nonnegligent explanation for the collision,” namely, that plaintiff caused the collision when he suddenly changed lanes in response to slowing traffic in the middle and left lanes of the highway and abruptly stopped in the right lane in front of defendant … .

… [W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that he established defendant’s negligence as a matter of law by submitting evidence of defendant’s guilty plea of following too closely (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]). “It is well settled that the fact that [the] driver entered a plea of guilty to a Vehicle and Traffic Law offense is only some evidence of negligence and does not establish his negligence per se’ ” … . “Rather, it is the unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [that] constitutes negligence per se’ ” … . Here, upon defendant’s explanation, the trier of fact could excuse the violation on the ground that plaintiff cut in front of defendant and immediately stopped, thereby failing to provide defendant with adequate time to create the “reasonable and prudent” distance between the vehicles that is required by the statute … . Gardner v Chester, 2017 NY Slip Op 05336, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AN OWNER OF OR A PARTNER IN THE BUSINESS WHICH LEASED THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INJURED SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined conclusory allegations that the landlord (Miranda) was an owner of the business (Molly’s Pub)) in which plaintiff’s decedent was injured were insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss in this wrongful death action:

We agree with Miranda … that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the complaint against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The conclusory allegations in the complaint alleging liability on the same grounds as those alleged against the [pub] defendants based upon the alleged ownership or partnership interest in the operation of Molly’s Pub are insufficient to state a cause of action against him. … Miranda submitted the lease, which provides that he shall not be liable for injury to persons or for any defects in the building. He also submitted an affidavit in which he stated that he has no ownership interest in Molly’s Pub, that did he not exercise any control over the operation of Molly’s Pub … , that he had no actual or constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition on the premises and that he was “merely an out-of-possession landlord.” …

‘[W]hile it is axiomatic that a court must assume the truth of the complaint’s allegations, such an assumption must fail where there are conclusory allegations lacking factual support . . . Indeed, a cause of action cannot be predicated solely on mere conclusory statements . . . unsupported by factual allegations” … . Here, plaintiff failed to allege any facts to support his allegation that Miranda had an ownership or partnership interest in the operation of Molly’s Pub. Sager v City of Buffalo, 2017 NY Slip Op 05340, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR HUSBAND’S DERIVATIVE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice of claim with respect to husband’s derivative claim stemming from wife’s injuries should have been granted. Because the county was deemed to have knowledge of the wife’s claim within 90 days, the county must also be deemed to have had timely knowledge of the derivative claim:

Here, respondent contends that it did not receive actual knowledge of the facts constituting the husband’s claim because it did not receive knowledge of the injuries or damages claimed by the husband. We reject that contention. “[C]ourts have granted leave to serve a supplemental or amended notice of claim to add a derivative cause of action for loss of consortium . . . where such claim results from the same facts as were alleged in a timely and otherwise admittedly valid notice of claim for personal injuries’ “… . Indeed, courts have generally recognized that derivative causes of action “[are] predicated upon exactly the same facts” as the injured party’s claims … . As a result, where it has been determined that the respondent received timely notice of the injured claimant’s claims, “there can be no claim of prejudice to respondent” resulting from a late notice of a derivative claim (id.).

Although we recognize that claimants did not file a timely notice of claim for the injuries sustained by claimant Melody L. Darrin (wife), the court’s determination to grant the application with respect to her suggests that the court determined that respondent had actual knowledge of the facts underlying her claim. Inasmuch as the husband’s derivative claim is “predicated upon exactly the same facts” as the wife’s claims … , we discern no rational basis upon which the court could have granted the application with respect to the wife but not the husband … . Matter of Darrin v County of Cattaraugus, 2017 NY Slip Op 05352, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

, ,

COUNTY LAW 308 DOES NOT PROHIBIT DISCOVERY OF 911 CALL RECORDS IN A CIVIL LAWSUIT, INCLUDING THE RECORDS OF 911 CALLS MADE BY NONPARTIES.

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeMoyer, determined Supreme Court properly ordered the county to provide to plaintiff records of 911 calls made during a severe winter storm. Plaintiff’s decedent was stranded in his car during the storm and called 911 for help. Help did not arrive until nearly 24 hours later, after plaintiff’s decedent died. In addition to the records of plaintiff’s decedent’s 911 call (which the county provided), plaintiff sought records of 911 calls made by others during the storm. The county argued the list of parties allowed access to 911 call records in County Law § 308 (4) was exclusive, and did not include parties in civil lawsuits. The Fourth Department determined the county’s argument was not supported by the legislative history of the statute:

Here, the context and legislative history of section 308 (4) paint a different picture than defendants’ de-contextualized analysis suggests. Section 308 was enacted as part of article 6 of the County Law, which contains 59 discrete provisions related almost exclusively to the financing of a uniform, statewide telephonic emergency response system. * * *

… County Law § 300 reveals unmistakably that the Legislature was motivated to adopt County Law article 6 in order to update the emergency response system across the State and to mitigate the financial burden of that endeavor for local governments. It is hardly surprising, then, that section 308 (4) lacks the hallmark language of other statutory provisions which specifically cut off a civil litigant’s access to certain classes of evidentiary materials for reasons of public policy… .

The relevant legislative history lends further support to our conclusion that the Legislature did not enact section 308 (4) in order to exempt 911 records from the scope of discovery authorized by CPLR article 31. Specifically, the sponsoring memorandum for what would become County Law article 6 referenced only the budgetary implications of enhanced 911 services for local government … , and a later-introduced bill sought to repeal section 308 (4) on the ground that it unjustifiably shielded 911 records from requests under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) … . Tellingly, the sponsor … did not identify any need to repeal section 308 (4) in order to make 911 records discoverable under article 31, and for good reason — section 308 (4) had never exempted 911 records from such disclosure in the first place. Abate v County of Erie, 2017 NY Slip Op 05351, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

CONVENIENCE STORE HAD TAKEN ADEQUATE MEASURES TO ADDRESS TRACKED IN SLUSH AND SNOW DURING A STORM, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED. ​

The First Department determined the convenience store’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on tracked in slush and snow at the front counter during a snow storm. Defendants had put a mat down, marked the area with a cone, and mopped the area 15 minutes before plaintiff fell:

Defendants were not required to provide a constant, ongoing remedy for an alleged slippery condition caused by moisture tracked indoors during a storm … . Moreover, defendants demonstrated that they employed reasonable maintenance measures to prevent such a condition…, by laying out a mat, placing an orange cone on the floor, and regularly mopping the store during the day, including within 15 minutes before plaintiff’s accident. These actions were “reasonable measures to remedy a hazardous condition” … .

The record also shows that defendants did not have constructive notice of the dangerous wet condition. The fact that it was snowing, with water and slush tracked in, does not constitute notice of a particular dangerous situation, warranting more than the laying of floor mats … . O’Sullivan v 7-Eleven, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05321, 1st Dept 6-29-17

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE TAILGATE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact about defendants’ constructive notice of a defective truck tailgate. Plaintiff, a truck driver, was injured when loading a pallet onto the truck (owned by defendants and rented to plaintiff’s employer). Plaintiff alleged his injury was caused by the deteriorated condition of the tailgate (a gap which caused the pallet to get stuck and then roll on the sloping tailgate). Plaintiff’s experts raised a question of fact about whether the condition developed over a period of months:

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether defendants had constructive notice of the alleged defects by submitting an affidavit by a licensed engineer and motor vehicle inspector who opined that the alleged defects developed over the course of months as a result of wear and tear and improper maintenance. Contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff’s expert’s opinions are based on evidence in the record, namely, plaintiff’s description of the alleged gap …  and the photographs that he testified accurately depicted the alleged slope at the time of his accident … , and are not inadmissible merely because the expert examined the truck more than a year after the accident occurred … . Rosada v Mendon Truck Rentals, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05314, 1st Dept 6-29-17

 

,

JUDGE’S INADEQUATE AND IMPROPER RESPONSE TO JURY QUESTIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice trial, determined the judge’s response to jury questions was inadequate and improper. The judge did not respond at all to one question. And the judge’s response was different from the response discussed with counsel:

… [I]n addition to Supreme Court’s failure to respond in the manner it had discussed with counsel, the response given did not fully or adequately answer the multiple questions asked by the jury. Indeed, the jury note requested “a clear explanation of ‘care and treatment,'” and also asked whether “‘care and treatment’ include[d] paperwork/documentation & policy? Or only the physical ‘care & tx’ given?” Importantly, the question of whether “‘care and treatment’ include[d] paperwork/documentation & policy?” was written by the jury as a stand alone question. The jury’s multiple questions clearly demonstrated that the jurors were confused as to whether, and in what manner, they were permitted to consider the alleged lack of documentation in determining whether defendant deviated from the standard of care. By failing to provide clarification on this point and by stating, matter-of-factly, that care and treatment included only the physical treatment and care given, Supreme Court precluded the jury from fairly considering a critical issue presented at trial … . Meyer v Saint Francis Hosp., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 05286, 3rd Dept 6-28-17

 

,

DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS ESCALATOR ACCIDENT CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Port Authority was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she was walking up a stopped escalator when it suddenly started moving downward, causing her to fall. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur raised a question of fact:

“Where the actual or specific cause of an accident is unknown, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a jury may in certain circumstances infer negligence merely from the happening of an event and the defendant’s relation to it” … . In order to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must show that the event was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence, that it was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and that it was not due to any voluntary act or contribution on the part of the plaintiff … . “To rely on res ipsa loquitur a plaintiff need not conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury. It is enough that the evidence supporting the three conditions afford a rational basis for concluding that it is more likely than not’ that the injury was caused by defendant’s negligence” … .

Here, the plaintiffs pointed to evidence that, once this particular escalator is stopped, it will not reset itself or otherwise restart on its own. Someone has to restart the escalator by physically using a specific key at the top or bottom of the escalator in order for the escalator to start moving again. Similarly, there was evidence that the only possible way to reverse the direction of the escalator was to use that specific key. Only Port Authority employees had access to the key, which was kept in a locked cabinet in the office of a unit maintenance supervisor. The fact that the escalator was open to the public does not remove it from the exclusive control of the Port Authority because the mechanism for controlling the escalator was locked and accessible only by a specific key … . Ramjohn v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2017 NY Slip Op 05254, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

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