You are here: / Negligence

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly denied. Plaintiff did not demonstrate freedom from comparative fault. Plaintiff had the right-of-way at the time of the collision:

While an operator of a motor vehicle traveling with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield … , the driver with the right-of-way nonetheless also has an obligation to keep a proper lookout and see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles … . There can be more than one proximate cause of a motor vehicle accident and, thus, “a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability in an action alleging negligence must establish, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault” … . The issue of comparative fault is generally a question for the trier of fact … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as her submissions were insufficient to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether she contributed to the happening of the accident … . Taylor v Brat Auto Sales, Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 08220, 2nd Dept. 12-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)/INTERSECTIONS (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (COMPARATIVE FAULT, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined the abutting property owner was entitled to summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. No statute or ordinance imposed a duty to maintain the sidewalk on the property. And the property owner demonstrated it did not create the icy condition:

An abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty … . Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … , by establishing that no statute or ordinance imposed upon it tort liability for failure to maintain the adjoining sidewalk, and that it did not create the alleged icy condition. Escobar v Lowe Props., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08197, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

NEGLIGENCE (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SIDEWALKS (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE)

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE.

The Second Department determined defendant, which owned property abutting a sidewalk, was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case under the storm in progress doctrine. The court laid out all of the applicable law:

“Under the so-called storm in progress rule, a property owner will not be held responsible for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow and ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm” … . However, “if the storm has passed and precipitation has tailed off to such an extent that there is no longer any appreciable accumulation, then the rationale for continued delay abates, and commonsense would dictate that the rule not be applied” … .

If a property owner has elected to clear a sidewalk during a storm in progress, the owner is required to act with reasonable care and may be liable if its efforts create a hazardous condition or exacerbate a natural hazard created by the storm … . The mere failure of a defendant to remove all of the snow and ice, without more, does not establish that the defendant increased the risk of harm … . Aronov v St. Vincent’s Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08190, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE)/SLIP AND FALL  (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL,  DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE)/STORM IN PROGRESS (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE)

, , , ,

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had adequately pled that the defendant law firm was equitably estopped from arguing an assignment, which was drawn up by the law firm, did not assign to plaintiff the right to bring a malpractice action against the law firm. The law firm had missed a deadline. Although the assignment could not be interpreted to include the malpractice claim, the equitable estoppel doctrine could be applied to prohibit the law firm from arguing the issue:

The motion court correctly found that the subject assignment, which merely transferred the assignor’s “entire right, title and interest in and to the [call] option contained in Paragraph 8 of” another contract, did not explicitly assign tort claims … . The assignment is not ambiguous; even if it were (and if we therefore considered parol evidence), an unexpressed understanding does not suffice … .

However, accepting plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to defendants’ motion as true, we find that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that defendants should be equitably estopped from arguing that the assignment did not assign tort claims. Contrary to defendants’ contention, estoppel can be based on silence as well as conduct … . Under these circumstances, where defendants drafted the assignment at a time when it represented … plaintiff, and that interpreting the assignment to exclude tort claims would mean that neither the assignor nor plaintiff, the assignee, would be able to sue defendants for malpractice for failing to exercise the call option in a timely manner, we find that the “special circumstances” exception to the privity requirement applies … . Deep Woods Holdings LLC v Pryor Cashman LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 08156, 1st Dept 12-6-16

NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/CONTRACT LAW (ASSIGNMENT, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/ASSIGNMENT (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)

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)

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