You are here: / Negligence
, ,

STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS.

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a state trooper, defendant Begeal, was entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case because he was immune from suit for his actions, which were discretionary. Plaintiff physician assistant was injured by a patient (Lacey) brought into the hospital by law enforcement officers, including Begeal. Plaintiff was kicked by the patient and alleged Begeal negligently failed to restrain the patient’s legs:

Although Begeal had access to plastic leg restraints, the undisputed evidence established that, at the time that he left the examination room, Lacey was still handcuffed, was “extremely calm” and had allowed a nurse to remove pieces of glass from his feet without kicking or otherwise resisting the nurse’s efforts. Begeal thus made a “reasoned judgment” not to utilize the leg restraints … . Accordingly, “[t]he decision to employ [only handcuffs] was a discretionary one . . ., and [Begeal] may not be held liable for that determination” … . …

Begeal’s decision to leave the examination room to permit the medical personnel to examine Lacey in private was likewise discretionary. Although Lacey was combative when he first arrived at the hospital, Begeal did not leave the examination room until approximately 20 minutes after that time and only after ensuring that Lacey had calmed down. Based on these circumstances, Begeal “did not feel that [the hospital personnel and Feeney] were in any immediate danger” and concluded that he could safely leave the room and go to the main area in order to, among other things, wash off Lacey’s blood from his clothes. While Begeal’s judgment call proved to be incorrect, “it is not for courts to second-guess the wisdom of discretionary governmental choices, troubling though they may sometimes seem in the glaring clarity of hindsight” … . Feeney v County of Del., 2017 NY Slip Op 03583, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (IMMUNITY, STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/IMMUNITY (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to conform the pleadings to the proof should have been granted in this medical malpractice action. Defendants submitted proof on the relevant issues (the treatment of plaintiff by defendant Slavin on January 26, 2009) and did not demonstrate amending the pleadings would result in any prejudice to them:

As the parties opposing such amendment, defendants had the burden of establishing that they had been prejudiced, that is that they “ha[d] been hindered in the preparation of [their] case or ha[d] been prevented from taking some measure in support of [their] position” … . That burden cannot be met when the difference between the original pleading and the evidence results from “‘proof admitted at the instance or with the acquiescence of [the opposing] party'”… . * * *

… [A]s defendants acquiesced to the introduction of the evidence of Slavin’s negligence on January 26, 2009, they could not meet their burden when they later opposed plaintiff’s cross motion to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at trial … . Even if this were not the case, defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing prejudice. Defendants’ contentions that they had been unprepared for cross-examination of plaintiff’s expert was conclusory, as defendants failed to offer a single example as to the manner in which the introduction of evidence that Slavin was negligent on January 26, 2009 hindered their cross-examination. Morever, defendants’ claims that they were prejudiced by the introduction of the January 26, 2009 negligence were unsupported by specific examples or proof in the record. More generally, the record establishes that plaintiffs had plainly notified defendants by their bills of particulars that plaintiff had been treated by Slavin on January 26, 2009 and that Slavin’s negligence included his failure to recognize, from imaging studies, the need to perform a closed reduction on plaintiff’s injured leg. Noble v Slavin, 2017 NY Slip Op 03578, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND PLEADINGS TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/PLEADINGS, MOTION TO CONFORM TO PROOF (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/PLEADINGS, AMENDMENT OF (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

ALLEGATION THE DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO REFRESH THE EYEWITNESS’S RECOLLECTION LEADING TO ERRONEOUS TESTIMONY STATED A CAUSE OF ACTON FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had alleged a valid cause of action for legal malpractice. Plaintiff alleged defendants’ failure to refresh the eyewitness’s recollection of the appearance of the truck which fled the hit-and-run accident scene led to erroneous testimony by the witness and the loss of the case:

In this legal malpractice action, plaintiff, the victim of a hit-and-run accident, alleges that defendants, who represented him in the underlying personal injury action, were negligent in failing to prepare and present the testimony of the sole eyewitness; that defendants’ negligence caused a verdict against him; and that he sustained actual damages. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that, prior to the eyewitness’s deposition testimony two years after the accident, defendants failed to refresh the eyewitness’s memory by showing him the police record of a phone call he made shortly after the accident, in which he described the hit-and-run vehicle as a green garbage truck with a flat front. The eyewitness then testified to the contrary at his deposition, stating that the garbage truck he remembered fleeing the scene had a round front, not a flat front. Plaintiff alleges that but for defendants’ negligence in handling the key witness in his case, he would have prevailed, as the driver operated a green garbage truck with a flat front, and the driver had already admitted to a route that would have placed him at the scene on the day and time of the accident. These allegations are sufficient to survive a CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) motion to dismiss, as nothing in the record conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law  … . Caso v Miranda Sambursky Sloane Sklarin Ver Veniotis LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 03607, 1st Dept 5-4-17

ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, ALLEGATION THE DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO REFRESH THE EYEWITNESS’S RECOLLECTION LEADING TO ERRONEOUS TESTIMONY STATED A CAUSE OF ACTON FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE)/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, ALLEGATION THE DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO REFRESH THE EYEWITNESS’S RECOLLECTION LEADING TO ERRONEOUS TESTIMONY STATED A CAUSE OF ACTON FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (ALLEGATION THE DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO REFRESH THE EYEWITNESS’S RECOLLECTION LEADING TO ERRONEOUS TESTIMONY STATED A CAUSE OF ACTON FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the statute of limitations in this medical malpractice action was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine:

“Under the continuous treatment doctrine, the 2½ year period does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment, when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint'” … . The doctrine “applies when further treatment is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient,” which is generally “manifested in the form of a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future, agreed upon during that last visit, . . . for the purpose of administering ongoing corrective efforts for the same or a related condition” …  Further “[i]ncluded within the scope of continuous treatment’ is a timely return visit instigated by the patient to complain about and seek treatment for a matter related to the initial treatment” ,,, ,

In the present case, [defendant doctor] testified at his deposition that when he discussed treatment options with the plaintiff, he advised the plaintiff that a new treatment process was available outside the United States and that he was cautiously optimistic that, at some time in the foreseeable future, he could offer it to the plaintiff in New York. The plaintiff, who was aware that the treatment process was the subject of a study aimed at obtaining FDA approval, testified at his deposition that he was waiting for the new treatment process to become available. After being told, in November 2008, that his only options were to wait for the new treatment or seek treatment outside the country, the plaintiff returned to the defendants for treatment of the same condition on March 9, 2011, and, in fact, received treatment for the same condition from the defendants continuing until December 2012. Freely v Donnenfeld, 2017 NY Slip Op 03491, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE.

The Second Department determined defendant driver’s allegation that plaintiff stopped suddenly was not enough to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence … . 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 … . Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the submission of her own affidavit, in which she averred that her vehicle was stopped on Northern Boulevard at its intersection with 157th Street, when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle. This affidavit demonstrated, prima facie, that Veliz was negligent and that she was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the subject accident.

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff stopped her vehicle suddenly was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s actions contributed to the happening of the accident, and it did not provide the defendants with a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision … . Nikolic v City-Wide Sewer & Drain Serv. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 03524, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

NEGLIGENCE (ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)

,

ELECTRICIAN SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN DRIVEWAY OF DEFENDANTS’ HOME, DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE OUT-OF-STATE, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DRIVEWAY WAS LAST INSPECTED OR WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY WAS ON THE DAY OF THE SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined the homeowners, who were living out-of-state while their home was being renovated, did not meet their burden of proof for summary judgment in this slip and fall case brought under Labor Law 200. Plaintiff, an electrician, alleged he slipped and fell on ice in the defendants’ driveway. The defendants didn’t demonstrate when the driveway was last inspected or what the condition of the driveway was when plaintiff fell, so the motion was denied without reference to plaintiff’s responding papers:

The Supreme Court properly determined that the homeowners had a duty to keep their property in a reasonably safe condition and provide workers with a safe place to work, even though they were residing out of state at the time of the accident … . In addition, contrary to the homeowners’ contention, the plaintiff’s alleged injuries stem from a dangerous condition on the premises … , and not from the manner in which work was performed … . Further, the court properly concluded that the homeowners failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the alleged icy condition in the driveway … . The evidence submitted in support of the homeowners’ motion, which included transcripts of the plaintiff’s and their own deposition testimony, failed to establish when they or the company they contracted with to provide snow removal on the driveway last inspected the driveway, or what the driveway looked like on the day of the accident … . DeFelice v Seakco Constr. Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03481, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ELECTRICIAN SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN DRIVEWAY OF DEFENDANTS’ HOME, DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE OUT-OF-STATE, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DRIVEWAY WAS LAST INSPECTED OR WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY WAS ON THE DAY OF THE SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTRICIAN SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN DRIVEWAY OF DEFENDANTS’ HOME, DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE OUT-OF-STATE, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DRIVEWAY WAS LAST INSPECTED OR WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY WAS ON THE DAY OF THE SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTRICIAN SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN DRIVEWAY OF DEFENDANTS’ HOME, DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE OUT-OF-STATE, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DRIVEWAY WAS LAST INSPECTED OR WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY WAS ON THE DAY OF THE SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)

, , , ,

DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Kolli’s) credentialing file was privileged and therefore not discoverable. The discovery request for the doctor’s personnel file was too broad; whether any parts of it are privileged must be determined document by document:

​

Concerning the discoverability of Dr. Kolli’s credentialing file, we note that such files “fall squarely within the materials that are made confidential by Education Law § 6527 (3) and article 28 of the Public Health Law”… . That privilege shields from disclosure ” the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical . . . malpractice prevention program’ ” .. . Here, defendants established that the credentialing file was “generated in connection with a quality assurance review function pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) or a malpractice prevention program pursuant to [article 28 of the] Public Health Law” … . We therefore conclude that the credentialing file is privileged and that the court improperly ordered defendants to disclose it… .

Although there is an exception to the privilege, the exception is limited to those statements made by a doctor to his or her employer-hospital concerning the subject matter of a malpractice action and pursuant to the hospital’s quality-control inquiry into the incident underlying that action … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, that exception does not apply here because the injury underlying this action was never the subject of such an inquiry. Jousma v Kolli, 2017 NY Slip Op 03308, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/PRIVILEGE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/CREDENTIALING FILE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/PERSONNEL FILE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)

,

SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant snow removal contractor’s (Krotz’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The contractor was hired to plow only the center driveway area, not the parking area where plaintiff fell. It could not be said, therefore, the contractor launched an instrument of harm, the only theory under which the contractor could possibly (under the facts) be liable in tort to plaintiff based upon the plowing contract. The court noted that since the only Espinal factor that may have been alleged sufficiently was “launching an instrument of harm,” that was the only factor the contractor needed to negate in the motion for summary judgment:

​

Here, any duty that Krotz had with respect to snowplowing on the subject property arose exclusively out of its contract with the apartment defendants … . It is well settled, however, that ” a contractual obligation, standing alone, will impose a duty only in favor of the promisee and intended third-party beneficiaries’ “… , and “will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party,” i.e., a person who is not a party to the contract … . There are “three situations in which a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’ . . . ; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties . . . and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that the allegations in the pleadings are sufficient to require Krotz to negate the possible applicability of the first Espinal exception in establishing its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment … , we conclude that Krotz met its initial burden of establishing that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm by creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition … . Lingenfelter v Delevan Terrace Assoc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03309, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/ESPINAL FACTORS (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/CONTRACT, TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM  (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)

STONE WALL ABUTTING A SIDEWALK IS NOT A FEATURE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SIDEWALK, THE SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY, HERE THE WALL OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S VIEW AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR BACKING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff bicyclist was struck by a car backing out of a driveway on defendant’s property. It was alleged that both the bicyclist’s and driver’s view was obstructed by a stone fence on defendant’s property abutting the sidewalk. The Fourth Department held that defendant did not owe a duty to plaintiff. The special use doctrine applies only when a special use of a sidewalk results in a structure on the sidewalk (not the case here):

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant established that it owed no duty to plaintiff, a user of the public way … . Although plaintiff contends that a duty arose because defendant made a special use out of the sidewalk by virtue of the fact that the driveway passed over the sidewalk, we conclude that the special use doctrine is inapplicable where, as here, there is no alleged defect in the sidewalk or driveway itself … . “In the absence of a special feature constructed in the sidewalk, the special use doctrine will not be applied even if the defendant makes continual, heavy use of the sidewalk”… .

We thus conclude that defendant established that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff. “In the absence of duty, there is no breach and without a breach there is no liability” … . Weston v Martinez, 2017 NY Slip Op 03301, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (STONE WALL ABUTTING A SIDEWALK IS NOT A FEATURE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SIDEWALK, THE SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY, HERE THE WALL OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S VIEW AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR BACKING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF)/SIDEWALKS (SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE, STONE WALL ABUTTING A SIDEWALK IS NOT A FEATURE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SIDEWALK, THE SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY, HERE THE WALL OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S VIEW AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR BACKING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF)/SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE (SIDEWALKS, STONE WALL ABUTTING A SIDEWALK IS NOT A FEATURE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SIDEWALK, THE SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY, HERE THE WALL OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S VIEW AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR BACKING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF)/BICYCLES (STONE WALL ABUTTING A SIDEWALK IS NOT A FEATURE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SIDEWALK, THE SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY, HERE THE WALL OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S VIEW AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR BACKING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF)

SPEED BUMP NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ summary judgment motion in this slip and fall case was properly denied. A speed bump painted the same color as an adjacent walkway was not open and obvious as a matter of law:

​

Contrary to defendants’ contention, we conclude that they failed to establish as a matter of law that the hazard posed by the speed bump was open and obvious and thus that they had no duty to warn plaintiff of a tripping hazard. It is well established that there is no duty to warn of an open and obvious dangerous condition “because in such instances the condition is a warning in itself’ “… . “Whether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances . . . A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted”… . “Some visible hazards, because of their nature or location, are likely to be overlooked . . . , and the facts here simply do not warrant concluding as a matter of law that the [speed bump] was so obvious that it would necessarily be noticed by any careful observer, so as to make any warning superfluous” … . Schneider v Corporate Place, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03300, 4th Dept 4-28-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SPEED BUMP NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW)/SLIP AND FALL (SPEED BUMP NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW)/SPEED BUMP (SLIP AND FALL, SPEED BUMP NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, SPEED BUMP NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW)

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