You are here: / Negligence

A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case. The court noted that a smooth surface which is slippery, standing alone, does not raise a question of fact:

The plaintiffs commenced this action, alleging that the defendants had negligently applied wax to the staircase, making it dangerously slippery. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

During the injured plaintiff’s deposition, the transcript of which was submitted in support of the defendants’ motion, he testified that he did not see any foreign substance, liquids, or other slippery substance on the steps, either before or after the subject accident. “[I]n the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence” … . Here, in support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as was based on the defendants’ alleged negligent application of wax or polish to the subject staircase … . Kapoor v Randlett, 2016 NY Slip Op 07927, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE)

, ,

FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS.

The Third Department determined the action against the city alleging negligence resulting in the destruction of plaintiffs’ property by fire should not have been dismissed. Fire department personnel told the plaintiffs the fire had been extinguished and that it was safe to reenter. However the fire rekindled. The Third Department held that there was a “special relationship” between the city and the plaintiffs stemming from the assurances the fire was out:

To establish a special relationship, plaintiffs were required to show: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and providing them the benefit of every favorable inference …, we conclude that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether a special relationship existed. With regard to the first element, there is no dispute that defendants’ agents dispatched the Department to plaintiffs’ residence in response to their 911 call for assistance and that the responding crew thereafter assumed control over the ongoing fire. Even if the Department’s actions in that regard simply constituted the performance of a duty owed to the public generally … , we are of the view that, by making affirmative representations to plaintiffs that the fire had been fully extinguished and that it was safe to reenter the home, the Department assumed an affirmative duty to plaintiffs … . As for the second and third elements, knowledge on the part of the Department that inaction could result in harm can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances … , and the Department’s employees undisputedly had direct contact with plaintiffs. With respect to the final element, plaintiffs allege that they relied upon the Department’s assurances that the fire was completely extinguished in choosing to leave their home unattended for the evening. Trimble v City of Albany, 2016 NY Slip Op 07912, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/FIRE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)

,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s action alleging defective design and construction of a highway should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s car slid on ice and snow and went off the road. Plaintiff alleged a guardrail should have been installed. The court noted that the written notice requirement did not apply to the guardrail allegation:

A municipality has a nondelegable duty to the public to construct and maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition, and this duty extends to furnishing and maintaining adequate barriers or guardrails where appropriate … . To that end, a municipality is under no obligation to upgrade its roads that complied with design standards when they were built merely because the standards were subsequently upgraded … .

We conclude that defendant failed to establish that the design of the road comported with the applicable standards at the time that County Road 113 was constructed. County Road 113, over which defendant admitted ownership, was constructed in the late 1940s. Defendant’s engineering expert did not identify what standards were in effect at the time that County Road 113 was designed or constructed … . Rather, defendant’s expert cited to the Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual in concluding that there was little justification for the placement of a guardrail at the location of [the] accident. This manual, however, was published in the 1970s and, therefore, does not apply to County Road 113. Fu v County of Wash., 2016 NY Slip Op 07910, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/HIGHWAYS (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/GUARDRAILS (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO REVIEW INMATE’S PAST RECORD OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, INMATE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was question of fact whether the county defendants were negligent in failing to determine whether an inmate was violent. Plaintiff was assaulted by the inmate and alleged the county should have reviewed the inmate’s past record of violent behavior:

“Having assumed physical custody of inmates, who cannot protect and defend themselves in the same way as those at liberty can, the [s]tate [or its political subdivisions] owe[] a duty of care to safeguard inmates, even from attacks by fellow inmates” … . This duty of care does not render the custodial entity “an insurer of inmate safety[,] and negligence cannot be inferred merely because an incident occurred” … . The duty owed is instead “limited to providing reasonable care to protect inmates from risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable, i.e., those that [the custodial entity or its agents] knew or should have known” … . * * *

Correction Law § 500-b (7) (a) states that the reviewing officer “shall exercise good judgment and discretion and shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the assignment of persons to facility housing units” advances the safety and security of all inmates and that of the facility in general. The statute enumerates a number of factors to consider in that analysis, but an inmate’s history of assaultive behavior or his or her prior prison disciplinary history are not among them … . The statute further lacks a specific requirement that the reviewing officer obtain all records pertaining to an inmate, instead directing a review of whatever “relevant and known” records are “accessible and available” (Correction Law § 500-b [7] [c] [3]). The statute accordingly creates a “possibility of exceptions . . . significant enough to justify a case-by-case determination of negligence without the automatic imposition of negligence under the negligence per se doctrine,” although a failure to obtain specific records could well constitute evidence of negligence in a given case … . Wassmann v County of Ulster, 2016 NY Slip Op 07907, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (INMATES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO REVIEW INMATE’S PAST RECORD OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, INMATE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, INMATES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO REVIEW INMATE’S PAST RECORD OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, INMATE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF)/INMATES (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO REVIEW INMATE’S PAST RECORD OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, INMATE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF)/ASSAULT  (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO REVIEW INMATE’S PAST RECORD OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, INMATE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF)

,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A SEWER SYSTEM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Third Department determined an action alleging negligent maintenance of a sewer system should not have been dismissed. The court noted that the written notice requirement (a common prerequisite for municipal liability) applies to defects in roads and sidewalks, etc. and does not apply to subsurface structures:

It is settled that a municipality is under a continuing duty to maintain and repair its sewage and water systems … , and this duty is independent of the duty not to create a dangerous or defective condition … . “[T]he breach of this ongoing duty is the ‘event’ that forms the basis for the claim” for purposes of General Municipal Law § 50-i … . Thus, defendant’s negligence, if any, in failing to maintain or repair its water and/or sewage system constitutes a continuing wrong that gives rise to a new cause of action for each injury that occurred … . Plaintiff’s recoverable damages, however, are limited “‘to those caused by the alleged unlawful acts sustained within 90 days preceding the date of filing of the notice of claim'” … . 461 Broadway, LLC v Village of Monticello, 2016 NY Slip Op 07905, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A SEWER SYSTEM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENCE (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A SEWER SYSTEM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SEWER SYSTEMS (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A SEWER SYSTEM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. 

The First Department determined a new liability trial was necessary in a personal injury case because of erroneous evidentiary rulings. The trial court allowed into evidence internal rules (apparently dealing with the operation of a subway train) which imposed a higher standard of care than that required by the common law:

The court erred in admitting into evidence portions of defendant’s internal rules, which imposed a higher standard of care than required by common law … . Moreover, the prejudice to defendant was heightened by plaintiff’s expert’s reading of those internal rules to the jury.

The court also erred in allowing plaintiff’s counsel to question defendant’s train operator about his discussions with counsel. Sebhat v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 2016 NY Slip Op 07872, 1st Dept 11-22-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/STANDARD OF CARE (ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)

PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY WHEN JUMPING FROM THE ROPES INTO THE RING.

The Fourth Department determined the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk precluded recovery by a professional wrestler for injuries resulting from a planned jump from the ropes into the ring:

It is well settled that the primary “assumption of [the] risk doctrine applies where a consenting participant in sporting and amusement activities is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks’ ” … . The participant assumes the risks that are inherent in the “sporting or amusement activit[y]” (id.), which “commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him or her from the risk” … . Consequently, a participant in such activity ” consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the [activity] generally and flow from such participation’ ” … . “[F]or purposes of determining the extent of the threshold duty of care, knowledge plays a role but inherency is the sine qua non” … . Finally, “[t]he primary assumption of the risk doctrine also encompasses risks involving less than optimal conditions . . . It is not necessary to the application of assumption of [the] risk 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’ ” … .

Here, the court properly concluded that the risk of severe neck and back injuries is inherent in the planned and staged activity engaged in by plaintiff, i.e., jumping from a four-foot high rope onto a wrestling ring, landing on one’s back, and then being pushed out of the ring by another performer. Thus, “it is indisputable that . . . plaintiff assumed the risk of landing incorrectly when tumbling in the manner he had been trained to do during his [five-year career as a professional wrestling performer]. The fact that the [rope was slightly looser], a circumstance of which . . . plaintiff was plainly aware, does not raise an issue of fact” … . Therefore, “by participating in the [exhibition], plaintiff consented that the duty of care owed him by defendants was no more than a duty to avoid reckless or intentionally harmful conduct . . . [and] consent[ed] to accept the risk of injuries that are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of his participation in” that exhibition … , including the risk of the injuries he sustained. Kingston v Cardinal O’Hara High School, 2016 NY Slip Op 07798, 4th Dept 11-18-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY WHEN JUMPING FROM THE ROPES INTO THE RING)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY WHEN JUMPING FROM THE ROPES INTO THE RING)

ABSENCE OF MARKINGS OR COLOR DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN STEP AND SIDEWALK CREATED AN ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER THE STEP WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, IRRESPECTIVE OF PLAINTIFF’S POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. There was evidence a step leading to defendants’ premises was dangerous because there were no markings or differences in color between the step and the sidewalk:

“[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . In view of the pertinent “factors that may render a physically small defect actionable” … , we conclude that … (defendants) failed to sustain their burden of establishing as a matter of law the absence of any defect with the step … . In any event, we conclude that, in opposition to the motion and cross motion, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact concerning the existence of a defect by submitting evidence that there were no markings on the step or differences in color between the step and the sidewalk … . Furthermore, the step was located in or very near a doorway, “where a person’s attention would be drawn to the door, not to the [step]” … .

We further conclude that the court erred in determining that plaintiff’s inattention to the step upon exiting the premises was the sole proximate cause of her injuries as a matter of law inasmuch as defendants “failed to establish that plaintiff’s fall was unrelated to the alleged defect” … . Thus, “while plaintiff may have been comparatively negligent in failing to observe the step or in failing to remember that the step was there, any such comparative negligence would not serve to negate the liability of the . . . landowner[,] who has a duty to keep the premises safe’ ” … . Grefrath v DeFelice, 2016 NY Slip Op 07786, 4th Dept 11-18-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ABSENCE OF MARKINGS OR COLOR DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN STEP AND SIDEWALK CREATED AN ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER THE STEP WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, IRRESPECTIVE OF PLAINTIFF’S POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/SLIP AND FALL (ABSENCE OF MARKINGS OR COLOR DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN STEP AND SIDEWALK CREATED AN ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER THE STEP WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, IRRESPECTIVE OF PLAINTIFF’S POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/STEPS (SLIP AND FALL, ABSENCE OF MARKINGS OR COLOR DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN STEP AND SIDEWALK CREATED AN ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER THE STEP WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, IRRESPECTIVE OF PLAINTIFF’S POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)

,

RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO COLLISION BETWEEN BICYCLE AND POLICE CAR, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICER WAS NOT IN PURSUIT.

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the “reckless disregard” standard applied to the defendant police officer’s driving and dismissed plaintiff bicyclist’s complaint. Apparently, the officer was moving his car into an intersection, trying to get the attention of another driver to whom he wished to speak. Plaintiff bicyclist, who had the green light, collided with the officer’s car:

… [W]e note that there is no dispute that defendant officer was operating an “authorized emergency vehicle” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 101). We reject plaintiff’s contention that, in determining whether defendant officer’s operation of the police vehicle qualifies as an “emergency operation” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b, we should adopt the definition of “pursuit” contained in the operations manual of defendant City of Syracuse Police Department … . Likewise, it is irrelevant whether defendant officer believed he was involved in an emergency operation … . Contrary to plaintiff’s further contentions, we conclude that defendant officer’s actions constituted an “emergency operation” as contemplated by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b … ; the applicable standard of liability is reckless disregard for the safety of others rather than ordinary negligence (see § 1104 [e]…); and defendants established as a matter of law that defendant officer’s conduct did not constitute the type of recklessness necessary for liability to attach … . Lacey v City of Syracuse, 2016 NY Slip Op 07794, 4th Dept 11-18-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO COLLISION BETWEEN BICYCLE AND POLICE CAR, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICER WAS NOT IN PURSUIT)/NEGLIGENCE (POLICE OFFICERS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO COLLISION BETWEEN BICYCLE AND POLICE CAR, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICER WAS NOT IN PURSUIT)/EMERGENCY VEHICLES (POLICE OFFICERS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO COLLISION BETWEEN BICYCLE AND POLICE CAR, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICER WAS NOT IN PURSUIT)/POLICE OFFICERS (RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO COLLISION BETWEEN BICYCLE AND POLICE CAR, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICER WAS NOT IN PURSUIT)

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF THE FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT.

The First Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly granted. Plaintiff could not identify the cause of the fall and any defect that might have existed was deemed trivial:

Defendants established prima facie that any defect in the sidewalk that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip and fall was insignificant and that there were no surrounding circumstances that magnified the dangers it posed … . They submitted plaintiff’s testimony that he could not describe the characteristics of the alleged defect or specify exactly where on the sidewalk he fell, and an affidavit by an expert who took photographs and measured the area and found no defect presenting an elevation differential of more than one quarter inch and no space between sidewalk slabs greater than one half inch. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the fact that the photographs were taken and the inspection performed almost two years after the accident is immaterial. Defendants submitted testimony that there had been no repairs to the sidewalk since the accident, and plaintiff does not argue that the photographs do not show the sidewalk in substantially the same condition as existed at the time of the accident.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. He was unable to describe the defect, except to say that it was not wide and it was not deep, and he cites no surrounding circumstances that enhanced the danger. Nor did he offer any measurements of the alleged defects in the area of his fall in refutation of defendants’ expert’s measurements. Saab v CVS Caremark Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07763, 1st Dept 11-17-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)/TRIVIAL DEFECTS (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT)

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