You are here: / Negligence
,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined infant plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the school was liable for negligent supervision stemming from harassment and bullying by fellow students. The Third Department further determined the Dignity for All Students Act (Education Law section 10) does not create a private right of action. With respect to negligent supervision, the court wrote:

“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” … . “In that regard, a school district is held to the same degree of care as would a reasonably prudent parent placed in comparable circumstances” … . “In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . Furthermore, the injuries sustained by a plaintiff must be proximately caused by the school’s breach of its duty to provide adequate supervision … . Such issues regarding adequate supervision and proximate cause are generally questions left to the trier of fact to resolve … . Motta v Eldred Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 05424, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/BULLYING (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

IN A REAR-END COLLISION, INNOCENT PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF FAULT, BUT CONFLICTING FACTS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE OR BOTH DEFENDANTS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick clarifying the precedents, found that plaintiff, an innocent driver struck from behind, was entitled to summary judgment only on the issue of his lack of culpability in the accident. Because plaintiff submitted the depositions of the two defendant drivers which presented conflicting evidence about their culpability, plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment against one or both defendants:

Plaintiff has established his lack of culpable conduct as an undisputed innocent driver, which entitles him to summary judgment on lack of fault pursuant to CPLR 3212(g) … . However … plaintiff has not established entitlement to summary judgment on liability against either defendant driver because of the conflicting and unresolved facts concerning the accident and which vehicle was responsible for the accident. Oluwatayo v Dulinayan, 2016 NY Slip Op 05455, 1st Dept 7-7-16

NEGLIGENCE (IN A REAR-END COLLISION, INNOCENT PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF FAULT, BUT CONFLICTING FACTS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE OR BOTH DEFENDANTS)/REAR END COLLISIONS (IN A REAR-END COLLISION, INNOCENT PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF FAULT, BUT CONFLICTING FACTS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE OR BOTH DEFENDANTS)/VEHICLE ACCIDENTS (IN A REAR-END COLLISION, INNOCENT PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF FAULT, BUT CONFLICTING FACTS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE OR BOTH DEFENDANTS)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PARKED TRUCK WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A BICYCLIST’S INJURIES.

The First Department determined there was question of fact whether the UPS truck parked in a no-standing zone was a proximate cause of plaintiff-bicyclist’s injuries. Plaintiff alleged the protrusion of the UPS into the lane of travel forced him to swerve toward a bus and then jump from his bicycle:

Defendant UPS argues that, although its truck was parked in a no-standing zone in violation of 34 RCNY 4-08(a)(3) at the time of the accident involving plaintiff’s bicycle and defendant MTA’s bus, its truck was not a proximate cause of the accident. However, the record presents issues of fact as to how far the UPS truck was protruding into the lane of travel, whether plaintiff swerved toward the bus in an effort to avoid the UPS truck, and whether plaintiff was forced to jump from his bicycle in order to avoid being slammed into the UPS truck as his bicycle was being dragged by the bus. Since a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the accident was a foreseeable consequence of UPS’s illegal parking, summary judgment was properly denied … . Santana v MTA Bus Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 05450, 1st Dept 7-7-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHERE PARKED TRUCK WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A BICYCLIST’S INJURIES)/BICYCLE ACCIDENTS (QUESTION OF FACT WHERE PARKED TRUCK WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A BICYCLIST’S INJURIES)/PARKED VEHICLES (QUESTION OF FACT WHERE PARKED TRUCK WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A BICYCLIST’S INJURIES)

BAR AT ENTRANCE TO A SHOPPING-CART CORRAL WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case because the alleged defect was trivial. Plaintiff alleged tripped over a 3/8-inch-high bar at the entrance to an enclosure for shopping carts (cart corral):

The submissions on the motion establish that “the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses” … . [Defendant] presented photographs taken by plaintiff’s photographer, which show that the metal bar was only three-eighths of an inch above the surface of the parking lot. Those photographs, and others in the record that were shown to plaintiff at her deposition, establish that the bar was not hidden or covered in any way and did not constitute a trap. Myles v Spring Val. Marketplace, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05351, 1st Dept 7-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (BAR AT ENTRANCE TO A SHOPPING-CART CORRAL WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT)/SLIP AND FALL (BAR AT ENTRANCE TO A SHOPPING-CART CORRAL WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (BAR AT ENTRANCE TO A SHOPPING-CART CORRAL WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ACTED RECKLESSLY, THEREBY RENDERING THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE.

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff assumed the risk of being struck by defendant skier because defendant acted recklessly. Plaintiff was standing at the bottom of the ski slope when defendant collided with her:

Plaintiff snowboarder was injured when, while standing at the base of a beginner ski slope and speaking with a friend, defendant struck her while skiing at approximately 20 to 30 kilometers per hour. Although there are inherent risks in the sports of skiing and snowboarding, “participants do not consent to conduct that is reckless, intentional or so negligent as to create an unreasonably increased risk” … .

Here, the record presents triable issues as to whether defendant had engaged in reckless conduct as he skied into a crowded area at the base of a beginner’s slope, which was at or near a marked safety zone, and that he did so despite his awareness of his limited abilities to safely handle such speed under the snow surface conditions presented. Furthermore, in view of the significant injuries sustained by plaintiff, reasonable inferences may be drawn that she endured a violent collision, which raises an issue as to whether the speed at which defendant was skiing was reckless under the circumstances … . Horowitz v Chen, 2016 NY Slip Op 05335, 1st Dept 7-5-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ACTED RECKLESSLY, THEREBY RENDERING THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ACTED RECKLESSLY, THEREBY RENDERING THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE)/SKI ACCIDENT (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ACTED RECKLESSLY, THEREBY RENDERING THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE)

, ,

EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, determined evidence of a consent order, in which defendant physician acknowledged a negligent failure to adequately monitor a dozen patients for whom he prescribed medication, should not have been admitted in evidence. The essence of the malpractice claim was defendant’s continued prescription of an anti-depressant for plaintiff’s decedent over a ten-year period, without seeing plaintiff’s decedent in his office, proximately caused plaintiff’s decedent’s suicide:

The record establishes that the Consent Order was neither probative of defendant’s negligence or the question of proximate cause. As part of the Consent Order defendant agreed not to contest negligent treatment of certain anonymous patients, none of whom was the decedent. As such, defendant preserved his objections to factual allegations related to decedent and any charges of misconduct based on those allegations. Since the Consent Order did not establish facts concerning defendant’s treatment of decedent, it was not probative as to that issue. In any event, given defendant’s pre-trial concession that he deviated from accepted medical practice, the issue of negligent treatment did not require resolution by the jury.

Further, any possible relevance of the Consent Order’s contents was outweighed by the obvious undue prejudice of his repeated violations of accepted medical standards … . The Consent Order was nothing more than evidence of unrelated bad acts, the type of propensity evidence that lacks probative value concerning any material factual issue, and has the potential to induce the jury to decide the case based on evidence of defendant’s character … . Mazella v Beals, 2016 NY Slip Op 05182, CtApp 6-30-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED)/PRIOR BAD ACTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED)

,

LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TESTEE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCEDURE; FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED ON THE RELIANCE OF A THIRD-PARY, AS OPPOSED TO THE PLAINTIFF, UPON A MISREPRESENTATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over two dissenting opinions, determined: (1)  a laboratory (LabCorp) which tests urine for the presence of drugs did not owe a duty of care to a testee based upon the violation of a federal regulation which did not involve a scientific testing procedure; and (2), a fraud cause of action against the laboratory could not be based upon a third party’s, as opposed to the plaintiff’s, reliance upon a misrepresentation.  Here plaintiff, a physician and a pilot, was selected for a random drug test. Plaintiff could not produce enough urine for the test and left the laboratory, returning the next day. Under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, plaintiff’s leaving the laboratory constituted a refusal to take the test. The FAA revoked plaintiff’s airman certificates and his authority to conduct FAA mandated pilot examinations. A court ultimately restored plaintiff’s certificates and examination authority. In his lawsuit against the laboratory, plaintiff alleged: (1) the laboratory was negligent in not informing him of the procedures and rules surrounding the inability to provide a urine sample; and (2) a laboratory employee (Montalvo) misrepresented to the FAA that plaintiff was uncooperative during the test.

… [I]n Landon (22 NY3d 1) we held that a drug testing laboratory can be liable to a test subject under the common law for negligent testing of a biological sample. We decline to extend Landon’s reasoning to impose a duty upon a laboratory to test subjects that requires the laboratory to adhere to aspects of the federal regulations and guidelines that do not implicate the scientific integrity of the testing process. * * *

Plaintiff alleges fraud against LabCorp, contending that Montalvo, LabCorp’s employee, made false statements to the FAA investigators, which they relied on to plaintiff’s detriment. Specifically, plaintiff points to Montalvo’s statement to the FAA investigators that plaintiff was on his cell phone and uncooperative during the test, making it impossible to warn him of the consequence of leaving the testing site without giving a sample, which statement the FAA relied on in revoking plaintiff’s airman certificates. We hold that under New York law, such third-party reliance does not satisfy the reliance element of a a fraud claim. Pasternack v Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings, 2016 NY Slip Op 05179, CtApp 6-30-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TESTEE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCEDURE); DRUG-TESTING (LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TESTEE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCEDURE)/LABORATORIES (DRUG-TESTING, NEGLIGENCE, LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TESTEE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCEDURE)/FRAUD (FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED ON THE RELIANCE OF A THIRD-PARY, AS OPPOSED TO THE PLAINTIFF, UPON A MISREPRESENTATION)

,

VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff fell on a concrete sidewalk and sued both the village and the abutting property owner. The village code required abutting property owners to keep sidewalks in good repair but did not impose tort liability for failure to keep the sidewalk in good epair. To hold an abutting property owner liable, therefore, plaintiff must demonstrate the property owner created the dangerous condition or subjected the sidewalk to special use:

Although the Code of Incorporated Village of Valley Stream requires an abutting landowner to keep a sidewalk in good and safe repair …. , it does not specifically impose tort liability for a breach of that duty … . Thus, without proof that [the property owner] either created the alleged defective condition or caused it to occur because of a special use, which is absent in the record before us, the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … . Obee v Ricotta, 2016 NY Slip Op 05129, 2nd Dept 6-29-16

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS,  VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF)

,

CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined a slip and fall complaint against a contractor which repaired exterior stairs was properly dismissed. The court explained the three theories under which a contract can result in a duty of care owed to a third party and the requirements of a defendant-contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this context:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are three exceptions to that general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . ” As part of its prima facie showing, a contracting defendant is only required to negate the applicability of those Espinal exceptions that were expressly pleaded by the plaintiff or expressly set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars'” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged facts in his complaint and bills of particulars in support of his assertion that the defendants created or exacerbated the alleged dangerous conditions and, thus, launched a force or instrument of harm. Therefore, in support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the defendants were required to establish, prima facie, that they did not create or exacerbate the alleged dangerous conditions … . The defendants met this burden and established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they neither created nor exacerbated the dangerous conditions that allegedly caused the plaintiff to sustain injuries. The parties’ deposition testimony established, prima facie, that the defendants did not leave the subject step or the handrail in a condition more dangerous than they had found them … . Barone v Nickerson, 2016 NY Slip Op 05107, 2nd Dept 6-29-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT (CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

,

MANUFACTURER’S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY.

The Court of Appeals, in an extensive opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, with a concurring opinion, determined the manufacturer of valves used on Navy ships had a duty to warn of the dangers associated with the necessary replacement of asbestos packing made by a third-party.:

Under our precedent, “[a] manufacturer has a duty to warn against latent dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product of which it knew or should have known” … . Additionally, the manufacturer must warn of dangers arising from the product's “intended use or a reasonably foreseeable unintended use” … . The manufacturer's duty also includes a legal obligation to issue warnings regarding hazards arising from foreseeable uses of the product about which the manufacturer learns after the sale of the product … . The duty “extends to the original or ultimate purchasers of the product, to employees of those purchasers and to third persons exposed to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm by the failure to warn” … . * * *

Accordingly, we recognize a manufacturer's duty to warn of the peril of a known and foreseeable joint use of its product and another product that is necessary to allow the manufacturer's product to work as intended. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2016 NY Slip Op 05063, CtApp 6-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (MANUFACTURER'S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY)/PRODUCTS LIABILITY (MANUFACTURERS'S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY)/DUTY TO WARN (NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY, MANUFACTURER'S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY)

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