You are here: / Negligence
,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE.

The Second Department determined the common law negligence cause of action brought by a police officer against the owner of property abutting the sidewalk where the officer allegedly slipped and fell, was properly dismissed. The applicable village and town codes did not make an abutting landowner liable in tort to someone injured on the sidewalk. However, the police officer’s action under General Municipal Law 205-e properly survived summary judgment. A property owner’s violation of a code provision requiring maintenance of the sidewalk was a proper basis for an action under General Municipal Law 205-e:

… [ t]he Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, which seeks to recover damages pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e. “A police officer seeking to recover under General Municipal Law § 205-e must identify a statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply and must, in addition, set forth facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused harm to him or her” … . As a prerequisite to recovery pursuant to a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action, a police officer must demonstrate injury resulting from negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear legal duties … .

* * * Section 302.3 of the 2007 Property Maintenance Code of New York State (see 19 NYCRR 1226.1) has been found by this Court to be a proper predicate for recovery under General Municipal Law § 205-e … .

Further, § 181-11 of the Town Code and § 250-27 of the Village Code are well-developed bodies of law that impose clear duties upon every property owner to keep his or her sidewalk in good and safe repair. Lewis v Palazzolo, 2016 NY Slip Op 06686, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/SLIP AND FALL (POLICE OFFICERS, (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/SIDEWALKS (POLICE OFFICERS, (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/POLICE OFFICERS (SLIP AND FALL, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)

,

ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION.

The Second Department determined the company (Mainco) under contract with the Bronx Center (a nursing home) to maintain an elevator could be liable to plaintiff, who was injured when the elevator fell. The court explained the analytical criteria for liability in tort to third parties stemming from a contract:

Mainco failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that it did not have a duty to the plaintiff. ” An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found'” … . Further, “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 . . . where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty” of safe maintenance … .

Here, the maintenance agreement between Mainco and Bronx Center required Mainco to periodically “inspect” the elevator and to “perform the New York City Local Law #10 mandated annual inspection.” The evidence demonstrated that, if there were any problems with the elevator, Bronx Center called Mainco, and Mainco inspected the elevator to determine and report on the cause of the problem. The evidence further indicated that if the cause of the problem was not a repair covered by the maintenance contract, Mainco issued a repair proposal, and would perform the repair upon acceptance of its proposal. Under these circumstances, Mainco failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that it did not assume a duty to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of that duty. Fajardo v Mainco El. & Elec. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06678, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM CONTRACT, ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION)/TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM CONTRACT ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION)

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner should not have been granted summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. Under the NYC Administrative Code the property owner had a duty to keep the sidewalk clear of ice and snow. The evidence submitted by defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the snow and ice or that he did not create the hazard by efforts to remove snow and ice:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 imposes a duty upon property owners to maintain the sidewalk adjacent to their property, and shifts tort liability to such owners for the failure to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, including the negligent failure to remove snow and ice … . However, Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 does not impose strict liability upon the property owner, and the injured party has the obligation to prove the elements of negligence to demonstrate that an owner is liable … . Thus, to prevail on his summary judgment motion, the defendant was required to establish that he neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … .

Here, in support of his motion, the defendant submitted evidence which included his own deposition testimony. The defendant’s deposition testimony indicated that while he regularly cleared snow from the sidewalk in front of his building during the winter months, he had no specific recollection of what days it snowed during February 2013, or what snow removal efforts he undertook during that month. Kabir v Budhu, 2016 NY Slip Op 06682, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW AND ICE, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel should have been applied to deny the NYC Transit Authority’s (NYCTA’s) motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve a notice of claim. The notice of claim had been timely served on the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and a 50-h hearing had been held:

Although the MTA and NYCTA share an affiliation, they are separate entities … . Thus, service of a notice of claim upon the MTA does not satisfy the condition precedent of serving a notice of claim upon the NYCTA … . However, a municipal corporation may be equitably estopped from asserting lack of notice of claim when it has wrongfully or negligently engaged in conduct that misled or discouraged a party from serving a timely notice of claim or making a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and when that conduct was justifiably relied upon by that party … . “By applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel to notice of claim situations, the courts may insure that statutes like section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, do not become a trap to catch the unwary or the ignorant'” … .  Konner v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 06683, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPLA LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)

,

VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment in favor of the defendant village should not have been granted in this sidewalk slip and fall case.  Although the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of snow and ice on the sidewalk, it did not demonstrate its practice of piling snow did not create the hazard:

While the mere failure to remove all snow or ice from a sidewalk is an act of omission, rather than an affirmative act of negligence … , a municipality’s act in piling snow as part of its snow removal efforts, which snow pile then melts and refreezes to create a dangerous icy condition, constitutes an affirmative act excepting the dangerous condition from the prior written notice requirement … . The defendant’s evidence demonstrated that the temperature rose and remained above freezing for an extended period of time on the day before the plaintiff’s accident, after the defendant created the snow piles. On the day of the plaintiff’s accident, however, the temperature dropped to below freezing. While the defendant submitted an affidavit of an employee who stated that he applied sand and salt to the area of the sidewalk where the plaintiff fell sometime between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the day of plaintiff’s accident, the plaintiff testified at his hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h that there was no sand or salt on the sidewalk at the time of his fall. Evidence submitted by the defendant also indicates that the ice upon which the plaintiff fell was located on a portion of the sidewalk that sloped down from the snow piles. Larenas v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 2016 NY Slip Op 06684, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE,VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SIDEWALKS (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL; FAILURE TO ALLEGE ANY ESPINAL EXCEPTION MANDATED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CLEANING CONTRACTOR.

Although the facts were not explained, the Second Department determined proof of “specific,” as opposed to “general,” cleaning practices, “under the circumstances,” was sufficient to meet defendant’s burden demonstrating the absence of constructive notice of the condition which caused plaintiff to fall (not specified in the decision). In addition, because plaintiff did not allege any of the “Espinal” exceptions, proof the plaintiff was not a party to the building owner’s contract with the cleaning contractor was sufficient to warrant summary judgment in favor of the contractor:

A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it … . To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . Although submission of evidence as to the defendant’s general cleaning practices is generally insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, specific evidence as to cleaning practices may be adequate, depending on the circumstances of the case … .

Here, the owner satisfied its prima facie burden through submission of the deposition testimony of an employee of the contractor and the building concierge employed by the owner. The testimony of the building concierge, and the testimony of the contractor’s employee regarding the frequency of the employee’s inspections of the area where the injured plaintiff fell, established, prima facie, that the owner did not have constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition … . Mavis v Rexcorp Realty, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06476, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/CONTRACT LAW (SLIP AND FALL, FAILURE TO ALLEGE ANY ESPINAL EXCEPTION MANDATED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CLEANING CONTRACTOR)

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant (Dick) in this rear-end collision case demonstrated freedom from fault and was entitled to summary judgment. The evidence, including plaintiff’s testimony, demonstrated defendant’s vehicle was struck from behind while stopped behind plaintiff, and thereby pushed into contact with the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle. It was alleged that defendant’s vehicle was struck from behind by a Verizon truck which left the scene. That there was a question of fact whether any Verizon truck was involved in the accident had no effect on defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment:

“The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway” … . Hence, “[a] rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision” … . “Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation” … .

Here, Dick established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that his stopped vehicle was propelled forward into the plaintiff’s vehicle after his vehicle was struck in the rear by a third vehicle, and that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . In opposition, the Verizon defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Dick was at fault in the happening of the accident … . Contrary to the Verizon defendants’ contention, the issue of whether they owned the third vehicle which struck Dick’s vehicle is not relevant to the determination of this motion. Wooldridge-Solano v Dick, 2016 NY Slip Op 06488, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/EVIDENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/REAR-END COLLISION (DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

,

PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate the absence of comparative fault in this rear-end collision case required the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment without reference to defendant’s papers:

 

“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” … . 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 … . Here, the plaintiffs’ submissions in support of their motion, which included the defendant’s deposition transcript, failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had a nonnegligent explanation for the collision. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs’ vehicle came to a stop, started again, and came to a second stop for no apparent reason. The defendant claimed that when he braked to avoid a collision, his vehicle skidded on a roadway which was wet from melting snow … . Moluh v Vord, 2016 NY Slip Op 06477, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REAR-END COLLISION PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

 

,

CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined the defendant school district did not demonstrate a chain stretched between two poles, over which plaintiff tripped and fell at a pep rally, was an open and obvious condition. Therefore the school’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

There is no duty to warn of a condition which is open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . “The issue of whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is fact-specific, and usually a question for a jury” … . “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’ … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the chain was open and obvious given the crowd and lighting conditions at the time of the accident … . Since the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Simon v Comsewogue Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 06486, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (TRIP AND FALL, CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)

WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.

The Second Department determined the wheel stop was an open and obvious condition which can not be the basis for liability in a slip and fall case:

While a property owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner for its patrons … , there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which is not inherently dangerous … . “A wheel stop or concrete parking lot divider which is clearly visible presents no unreasonable risk of harm” … .

Here, the defendant … established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and photographic evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff tripped when her foot came into contact with a wheel stop, which was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, as she attempted to step over it on the way to her car … . Lacerra v CVS Pharmacy, 2016 NY Slip Op 06474, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/SLIP AND FALL (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/WHEEL STOP (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)

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