You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE DETERMINING WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED.

The Third Department determined defendant’s summary judgment motion in this wrongful death action should have been denied as premature. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed in a workplace accident and workers’ compensation death benefits were paid out. In addition to arguing that workers’ compensation was plaintiff’s sole remedy, defendant argued the corporation plaintiff sued had been dissolved and assets transferred to another corporation. Because piercing the corporate veil might be an issue, the Third Department held that plaintiff was entitled to discovery to flesh out the relationship among plaintiff’s decedent and the two corporations:

“[A] summary judgment motion is properly denied as premature when the nonmoving party has not been given reasonable time and opportunity to conduct disclosure relative to pertinent evidence that is within the exclusive knowledge of the movant or a codefendant” … . Although we have held that, “in certain situations, . . . more than one entity may be considered a plaintiff’s employer for purposes of workers’ compensation” … , defendant’s submissions fall far short of establishing that premise as a matter of law. A determination as to whether two entities are alter egos of each other requires a far more detailed record than is present here … . Pringle v AC Bodyworks & Sons, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08924, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/CORPORATION LAW (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/WRONGFUL DEATH (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)

, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY A DISCOVERY DEMAND WERE ENTITLED TO CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY AS DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, MATTER REMITTED FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS.

In an action against a veterinary clinic stemming from an alleged attack by a dog in the waiting room, the Third Department determined the clinic did not demonstrate documents sought by plaintiff’s discovery demands were entitled to conditional immunity as documents prepared for litigation. The matter was remitted for court review of the documents:

Inasmuch as “[t]he purpose of liability insurance is the defense and settlement of claims . . . once an accident has arisen,” documents contained in the insurance adjuster’s file are generally protected by “a conditional immunity . . . as material prepared for litigation” … . Accident reports that are prepared with “a mixed purpose and result at least in part from the internal operations of the defendant’s business” are not, however, exempt from disclosure … . It is therefore incumbent upon “the party resisting disclosure to[, in the first instance,] show that the materials sought were prepared solely for litigation and this burden cannot be satisfied with wholly conclusory allegations” … . Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08926, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

INSURANCE LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY A DISCOVERY DEMAND WERE ENTITLED TO CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY AS DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, MATTER REMITTED FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS)/NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY A DISCOVERY DEMAND WERE ENTITLED TO CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY AS DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, MATTER REMITTED FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY A DISCOVERY DEMAND WERE ENTITLED TO CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY AS DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, MATTER REMITTED FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS)/CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY A DISCOVERY DEMAND WERE ENTITLED TO CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY AS DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, MATTER REMITTED FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS)/PRIVILEGE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY A DISCOVERY DEMAND WERE ENTITLED TO CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY AS DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, MATTER REMITTED FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS)/ACCIDENT REPORTS (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY A DISCOVERY DEMAND WERE ENTITLED TO CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY AS DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, MATTER REMITTED FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS)

, ,

COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied in this vehicle-accident case alleging the negligent failure to install a guardrail. The county did not demonstrate it was entitled to qualified immunity based upon a relevant highway-safety study of the area, and did not demonstrate the absence of a guardrail was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries:

A municipal defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “where a duly authorized public planning body has entertained and passed on the very same question of risk as would ordinarily go to the jury” … . Here, the evidence presented by the County failed to establish that it undertook a study which entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that is at issue in this case … . …

… [T]he County failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have a duty to place guardrails near the concrete headwall involved in the plaintiff’s accident. …

… [T]he County’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether its alleged negligence in failing to place guardrails near the concrete headwall … was a substantial factor in aggravating the plaintiff’s injuries … . Bednoski v County of Suffolk, 2016 NY Slip Op 08832, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/HIGHWAYS (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/GUARDRAILS (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)

,

SCHOOL NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN A STUDENT FELL ON TOP OF HIM.

The Second Department determined the school’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision action was properly denied. The plaintiff student was injured when another student fell on top of him. There was evidence the student who injured plaintiff had been acting up for 10 minutes prior to the incident:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they properly supervised the infant plaintiff or that their alleged negligent supervision was not a proximate cause of his injuries … . In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the infant plaintiff’s deposition testimony in which he asserted that the student who fell on top of him had been running around the gym throwing basketballs at another student before he fell on the infant plaintiff, and that this behavior had been transpiring, unimpeded, for approximately 10 minutes before the accident. Roth v Central Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 08894, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (SCHOOL NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN A STUDENT FELL ON TOP OF HIM)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, SCHOOL NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN A STUDENT FELL ON TOP OF HIM)

,

SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION BROUGHT BY INJURED STUDENT.

The Second Department determined the defendant school’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision action was properly denied. The complaint alleged plaintiff’s fall was caused by students jumping up and down on a bridge:

… [T]he defendant, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that it properly supervised the infant plaintiff or that its alleged negligent supervision was not a proximate cause of his injuries .. . J.M. v North Babylon Union Free Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 08847, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION BROUGHT BY INJURED STUDENT)/EDUCATION-SHOOL LAW (SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION BROUGHT BY INJURED STUDENT)

,

DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE SECURITY COMPANY ALLEGEDLY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined defendant Arrow Security, a company under contract with defendant theater, Paramount, to provide security for patrons, was not entitled to a dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff, an employee of Paramount, alleged he was instructed by Arrow to restrain a person, John Doe, who was in the rear alley of the theater premises. Plaintiff alleged he was beaten and injured by John Doe. The contract between Arrow and Paramount specifically stated the contract did not create a duty owed to third parties. However, the court concluded the complaint stated a claim for common-law negligence because it was alleged Arrow directed plaintiff to restrain John Doe:

… Arrow failed to conclusively establish that it owed no common-law duty to the plaintiff. To the contrary, the allegations in the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff … , set forth a cognizable legal theory under which Arrow could be found to have assumed a duty of care to the plaintiff by calling for and instructing him to investigate, restrain, and/or detain the intoxicated John Doe … . A duty of care may be assumed where a “defendant’s conduct placed plaintiff in a more vulnerable position than plaintiff would have been in had defendant done nothing” … , or where a defendant’s conduct “enhanced the risk that plaintiff faced, created a new risk or induced plaintiff to forego some opportunity to avoid risk” … . Garda v Paramount Theatre, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08841, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF)/CONTRACT, TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM (DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF)/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF)/DUTY (NEGLIGENCE, DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF)

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGED AWARENESS OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined the defendant abutting property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk trip and fall action was properly denied. The court clearly explained the relationship between the applicable administrative code provision and the abutting property owners’ responsibility for maintaining a safe sidewalk. The plaintiff tripped over a raised sidewalk flag. The defendant’s own motion papers demonstrated he was aware of the defect for four years:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (hereinafter the Administrative Code) imposes tort liability upon certain owners of real property, including the appellant, for injuries proximately caused by the failure of such owners to maintain the sidewalks abutting their property in a reasonably safe condition … . Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code does not, however, impose strict liability upon landowners for injuries arising from allegedly dangerous conditions on a sidewalk abutting their property … . Rather, the injured party has the obligation to prove the elements of negligence to demonstrate that the landowner is liable under this section of the Administrative Code … . Specifically, the injured party must establish (1) the existence of a duty on the landowner’s part as to the injured party, (2) a breach of this duty, and (3) a resulting injury to the injured party … . In support of a motion for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action pursuant to section 7-210 of the Administrative Code, the landowner has the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Nisimova v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08875, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGED AWARENESS OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SIDEWALKS (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGED AWARENESS OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGED AWARENESS OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND ALLEGED DEFENDANT FAILED TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this vehicle-collision case was properly denied. Plaintiff had the right of way and alleged defendant did not stop at a stop sign. However, plaintiff did not demonstrate she was free from comparative fault:

… [T]he only evidence in admissible form submitted by the plaintiff in support of her motion was her own affidavit, in which she briefly alleged that the defendant driver had failed to stop at the stop sign governing traffic on Batchelder Street and yield to traffic on Avenue U. The plaintiff’s affidavit did not set forth other relevant circumstances, including the rate of speed at which she was traveling, where her vehicle was positioned when she allegedly observed the defendant driver fail to stop at the stop sign, and where her vehicle was positioned when the collision occurred. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s affidavit was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s alleged negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that she was free from comparative fault … . Kanfer v Wong, 2016 NY Slip Op 08851, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND ALLEGED DEFENDANT FAILED TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (VEHICLE COLLISION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND ALLEGED DEFENDANT FAILED TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/ACCIDENTS, VEHICLE (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND ALLEGED DEFENDANT FAILED TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (VEHICLE ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND ALLEGED DEFENDANT FAILED TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)

,

ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL WAS NOT LIABLE IN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE FOR RELEASING PLAINTIFF AND NOT ENSURING A SAFE RETURN HOME, THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice cause of action was properly denied. The negligence cause of action against the hospital stemming from the same facts had previously been dismissed. Plaintiff was released from the hospital and found two hours later, disoriented and frost-bitten. The hospital, in the negligence cause of action, was found to have no duty to prevent plaintiff from leaving the hospital against medical advice and no duty to ensure plaintiff’s safe return home. However, allegations that the assessment plaintiff’s medical and mental status and the discharge of plaintiff from the hospital were not in accordance with good and accepted medical practice stated a cause of action in medical malpractice:

Although “no rigid analytical line separates the two” … , we have long recognized the distinction between an ordinary negligence cause of action against a hospital and/or a physician … and a medical malpractice cause of action against a hospital and/or a physician … . We note that there is no prohibition against simultaneously pleading both an ordinary negligence cause of action and one sounding in medical malpractice … . It is simply beyond cavil “that an action for personal injuries may be maintained, in the proper case, on the dual theories of medical malpractice or simple negligence where a person is under the care and control of a medical practitioner or a medical facility” … . Moreover, in a proper case, both theories may be presented to the jury … .

Here, the medical malpractice cause of action alleges, inter alia, that defendant did not properly assess plaintiff’s medical and mental status and rendered medical care that was not in accordance with good and accepted medical practice, and that the discharge of plaintiff was not in accordance with good and accepted medical practices. Ingutti v Rochester Gen. Hosp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08615, 4th Dept 12-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL WAS NOT LIABLE IN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE FOR RELEASING PLAINTIFF AND NOT ENSURING A SAFE RETURN HOME, THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL WAS NOT LIABLE IN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE FOR RELEASING PLAINTIFF AND NOT ENSURING A SAFE RETURN HOME, THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)

GOLFER ASSUMED THE RISK OF LOSING CONTROL OF HER GOLF CART ON A WET SLOPE.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff had assumed the risk of losing control of her golf cart on a steep slope:

… [D]efendants established on the motion that plaintiff was an experienced golfer who had played that hole and driven that cart path several times previously. Apart from her familiarity with the steep topography of the hole, plaintiff was aware that it had rained the night before and that the course was still wet that morning. She had driven her golf cart on that cart path just moments before her accident, and further had observed the leaves and berries on the cart path as she began down the cart path. It is common knowledge that leaves and other natural litter may be present on a golf course and that such litter may become slick when it is wet … . For those reasons, we conclude that plaintiff was aware of the risk posed by the cart path and assumed it … . Kirby v Drumlins, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08709, 4th Dept 12-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (GOLFER ASSUMED THE RISK OF LOSING CONTROL OF HER GOLF CART ON A WET SLOPE)/GOLF CARTS (GOLFER ASSUMED THE RISK OF LOSING CONTROL OF HER GOLF CART ON A WET SLOPE)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (GOLFER ASSUMED THE RISK OF LOSING CONTROL OF HER GOLF CART ON A WET SLOPE)

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