You are here: / Negligence

DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this elevator accident case was properly denied. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied:

The motion court properly concluded that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur precludes the award of summary judgment in defendant’s favor in this action where plaintiff was injured when the elevator in which he was riding came to a sudden and abrupt stop. Elevator malfunctions ordinarily do not occur in the absence of negligence … , and defendant has failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that it lacked exclusive control over the subject elevator at the time of the accident. Defendant’s argument that vandalism was the cause of the elevator’s malfunction, lacks support in the record, and there is no evidence that plaintiff’s actions played a role in the cause of the accident. Galante v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 00430, 1st Dept 1-24-17

NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATOR ACCIDENT, DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)/ELAVATORS (DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)/RES ISPA LOQUITUR (ELEVATOR ACCIDENT, DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)

NO NOTICE OF ALLEGED SKIDDING AND SHAKING OF ESCALATOR, RES IPSA LOQUITUR NOT APPLICABLE.

The First Department determined the escalator-fall case against defendant Macy’s and (apparently) defendant ThyssenKrupp (responsible for escalator maintenance) was properly dismissed. The defendants demonstrated they had no notice of a problem with the escalator (either before or after the accident). The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because plaintiff did not show the alleged skidding and shaking of the escalator could only have resulted from defendants’ negligence:

Macy’s operations manager and ThyssenKrupp’s elevator mechanic both testified that they did not receive any reports of the escalators shaking or stopping and starting before the date of plaintiff’s accident; nor did anyone, including plaintiff, before her July 2009 accident, observe the escalators stop and start several times in succession … . … The fact that Macy’s made service calls to ThyssenKrupp on January 15, 2009 and February 15, 2009, because the escalator from the basement to the main level was not running, does not raise an issue of fact as to notice, since there is no evidence that those calls were occasioned by the type of malfunctioning plaintiff describes … . * * *

Plaintiff claims that the escalator skidded and shook causing her to fall forward. The evidence in this record establishes that the elevator never operated in this manner either before or after the alleged accident. Plaintiff was able, after her fall, to ride the escalator up to the next level without any further escalator malfunction. Without more, this proof is insufficient to establish that the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence … . Torres-Martinez v Macy’s, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00429, 1st Dept 1-24-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (ESCALATOR FALL, NO NOTICE OF ALLEGED SKIDDING AND SHAKING OF ESCALATOR, RES IPSA LOQUITUR NOT APPLICABLE)/SLIP AND FALL (ESCALATOR FALL, NO NOTICE OF ALLEGED SKIDDING AND SHAKING OF ESCALATOR, RES IPSA LOQUITUR NOT APPLICABLE)/ESCALATORS (ESCALATOR FALL, NO NOTICE OF ALLEGED SKIDDING AND SHAKING OF ESCALATOR, RES IPSA LOQUITUR NOT APPLICABLE)/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (ESCALATOR FALL, NO NOTICE OF ALLEGED SKIDDING AND SHAKING OF ESCALATOR, RES IPSA LOQUITUR NOT APPLICABLE)

EVEN THOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN HE CROSSED THE STREET, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED STRIKING HIM.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this pedestrian traffic accident. Plaintiff pedestrian conceded he did not have the right of way when he crossed in a crosswalk. There was a question of fact whether the driver could have seen the pedestrian and avoided the accident:

Plaintiff pedestrian testified that he was struck by defendant’s vehicle while crossing the street within the crosswalk, but conceded that he did not have the right of way when he entered the street (… Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1112;…). Nevertheless, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, triable issues of fact exist as to the relative positions of plaintiff and defendant at the time of the accident, and whether defendant could have seen plaintiff before the accident and failed to exercise due care to avoid the accident … . Sylvester v Velez, 2017 NY Slip Op 00390, 1st Dept 1-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (EVEN THOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN HE CROSSED THE STREET, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED STRIKING HIM)/PEDESTRIANS (EVEN THOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN HE CROSSED THE STREET, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED STRIKING HIM)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EVEN THOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN HE CROSSED THE STREET, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED STRIKING HIM)

,

ACCIDENT REPORT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT NOTIFY THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS, THEREFORE LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the city, based upon a traffic accident involving a city police car, was properly denied. Although there was a police report of the accident, there was no indication in the report that petitioner was injured:

“A report which describes the circumstances of the accident without making a connection between the petitioner’s injuries and negligent conduct on the part of the public corporation will not be sufficient to constitute actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim” … . Here, since the police accident report does not connect any injuries sustained by the petitioners to any negligent conduct on the part of the operator of the respondents’ vehicle, it was not sufficient to provide the respondents with actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim. Moreover, the direct involvement of the respondents’ employee in the accident itself, without more, is also not sufficient to establish that the respondents acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim … . Matter of D’Agostino v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 00302, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (ACCIDENT REPORT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT NOTIFY THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS, THEREFORE LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, ACCIDENT REPORT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT NOTIFY THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS, THEREFORE LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, ACCIDENT REPORT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT NOTIFY THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS, THEREFORE LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)

,

STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES.

The Second Department determined the state did have a duty to warn swimmers of rip currents. Claimant’s decedent drowned after a rip current pulled him away from shore:

Turning to the merits, “the State must act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining [its] property,'” such as a park, ” in a reasonably safe condition'” … . “The duty goes beyond the mere maintenance of the physical condition of the park” … , as there is a “recognized duty of general supervision” … . The degree of general supervision must be “adequate” … . Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it furnished a sufficient number of lifeguards, that those lifeguards were experienced and competent, and that they reacted to the situation in accordance with proper procedure … . In opposition, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

Furthermore, the defendant has no duty to warn swimmers of threats arising from the existence of natural, transitory conditions of the ocean floor … , including rip currents … . Seetaram v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 00336, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES)/COURT OF CLAIMS (STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES)/SWIMMERS (STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES)/RIP CURRENTS (STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES)/STATE PARKS (STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES)

EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly granted pursuant to the emergency doctrine. Plaintiff’s car crossed into oncoming traffic and struck defendants’ car. Defendants demonstrated the emergency doctrine applied. No question of fact was raised about defendant driver’s negligence:

The defendants established, prima facie, that the defendant driver was presented with an emergency situation not of his own making when the plaintiff’s vehicle crossed over into his lane of traffic, and that he acted reasonably in response to that emergency … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, her deposition testimony, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, did not create a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident … . Graci v Kingsley, 2017 NY Slip Op 00291, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

NEGLIGENCE (EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)

NO DUTY OWED BY CAB COMPANY TO GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF INJURED BY THE CAB AFTER THE DRIVER WAS RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS DURING A ROBBERY. 

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined the owner of a taxicab did not owe a duty to plaintiff who was injured by the cab when an occupant of the cab rendered the driver unconscious during a robbery. The administrative rule requiring a partition between the passenger area and the driver was deemed designed to protect the driver of the cab, not the general public outside of the cab.  Similarly a broken CB radio in the cab did not breach a duty owed to the general public:

Plaintiffs focus on the foreseeability of the type of accident that occurred in the absence of safety devices that would have protected the driver from assault. They argue that since those safety devices would protect not only the driver, but other motorists and pedestrians who might be injured by the driver, the owner of the vehicle owed a duty to both the driver and to plaintiffs to install safety equipment that would protect them.

With regard to how foreseeability interconnects with duty, some confusion has arisen from the classic language of Chief Judge Cardozo’s decision in Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co. (248 NY 339, 344 [1928]), that “[t]he risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.” These words have sometimes been misinterpreted to mean that the foreseeability of harm can “spawn[] a duty” to prevent that harm (see e.g. Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781, 787 [1976] [dissenting opinion]). However, the majority in Pulka v Edelman clarified the error of this reasoning, to explain that foreseeability may not be relied on to create a duty:

“Foreseeability should not be confused with duty. The principle expressed in Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co. (248 NY 339, supra), quoted by the dissent, is applicable to determine the scope of duty — only after it has been determined that there is a duty. Since there is no duty here, that principle is inapplicable” (Pulka, 40 NY2d at 785). On v BKO Express LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 00281, 1st Dept 1-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO DUTY OWED BY CAB COMPANY TO GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF INJURED BY THE CAB AFTER THE DRIVER WAS RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS DURING A ROBBERY)/DUTY (NEGLIGENCE, NO DUTY OWED BY CAB COMPANY TO GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF INJURED BY THE CAB AFTER THE DRIVER WAS RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS DURING A ROBBERY)/FORESEEABILITY (NO DUTY OWED BY CAB COMPANY TO GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF INJURED BY THE CAB AFTER THE DRIVER WAS RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS DURING A ROBBERY)

OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Defendant (Schindler) failed to secure a seven-foot wooden panel which apparently fell and injured plaintiff. The court noted that the open and obvious nature of the panel eliminated the duty to warn but not the duty to make the premises safe:

Schindler’s arguments that the wooden panel that its workers leaned against the wall was open and obvious, that plaintiff failed to use her senses to observe it, and that any barricades or warnings would not have prevented the accident, are unpreserved as they were not presented to the motion court … . In any event, we would find such arguments unavailing because even if a hazard is open and obvious, that merely eliminates the duty to warn, but not the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . Here, it is undisputed that Schindler’s employees failed to secure the seven-foot tall wooden panel that they leaned against the wall or create a perimeter around it to prevent others from entering the area. Polini v Schindler El. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00254, 1st Dept 1-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE)/WARN, DUTY TO (OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SIDEWALK LOW-LYING TRIPPING HAZARD NARROWED THE PASSABLE AREA AND WAS VISIBLE AT NIGHT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were triable issues of fact whether a sidewalk defect narrowed the passable area and whether the defect was visible at night:

… [T]he owner and property manager of the premises that abutted a sidewalk where plaintiff Alison Stolzman tripped, established prima facie entitlement to summary judgement based on the testimony and photographic evidence indicating the alleged hazard was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … .

However, there remain triable issues as to whether the alleged low-lying tripping condition dangerously narrowed the passable area of the sidewalk and was adequately visible at night … . Stolzman v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 00247, 1st Dept 1-12-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SIDEWALK LOW-LYING TRIPPING HAZARD NARROWED THE PASSABLE AREA AND WAS VISIBLE AT NIGHT)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SIDEWALK LOW-LYING TRIPPING HAZARD NARROWED THE PASSABLE AREA AND WAS VISIBLE AT NIGHT)/ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS (SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SIDEWALK LOW-LYING TRIPPING HAZARD NARROWED THE PASSABLE AREA AND WAS VISIBLE AT NIGHT)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SIDEWALK LOW-LYING TRIPPING HAZARD NARROWED THE PASSABLE AREA AND WAS VISIBLE AT NIGHT)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SIDEWALK LOW-LYING TRIPPING HAZARD NARROWED THE PASSABLE AREA AND WAS VISIBLE AT NIGHT)

, ,

DISCLOSURE OF SUBSTANCE OF DEFENSE EXPERT’S OPINION INADEQUATE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice action. The defendants’ notice of the expert opinion evidence to be presented at trial did not notify plaintiffs that the expert would testify plaintiff’s stroke was caused by a piece of calcium, not a blood clot. Plaintiffs’ malpractice theory was based entirely on the allegation a blood clot was the cause of the stroke. The court explained the notice requirements:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict in favor of [defendants] and against the plaintiffs on the issue of liability. Pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i), [defendants] were required to disclose “in reasonable detail the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify, . . . and a summary of the grounds for each expert’s opinion.” Here, [the] expert witness disclosure only revealed expert testimony that [plaintiff’s] stroke was not caused by his atrial fibrillation or a blood clot, but did not inform the plaintiffs that the expert would testify that the stroke was caused by calcification. [Defendant] failed to demonstrate good cause for not disclosing the substance of his expert’s causation theory until trial … . The revelation of the defendants’ causation theory at trial prejudiced the plaintiffs’ ability to prepare for trial because they did not have adequate time to consult or retain an expert neuroradiologist … . Rocco v Ahmed, 2017 NY Slip Op 00207, 2nd Dept 1-11-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCLOSURE OF SUBSTANCE OF DEFENSE EXPERT’S OPINION INADEQUATE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRCTICE (DISCLOSURE OF SUBSTANCE OF DEFENSE EXPERT’S OPINION INADEQUATE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOTICE OF EXPERT OPINION, DISCLOSURE OF SUBSTANCE OF DEFENSE EXPERT’S OPINION INADEQUATE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCLOSURE OF SUBSTANCE OF DEFENSE EXPERT’S OPINION INADEQUATE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

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