You are here: / Negligence

SIDEWALK RISE OF A LITTLE OVER AN INCH WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT.

 

The Second Department determined a sidewalk rise of slightly more than an inch was a non-actionable trivial defect:

Here, the owners and the lessees submitted … evidence to establish that the defect at issue was, at most, a rise of slightly more than one inch in a portion of the sidewalk and that neither the alleged defect nor the surrounding circumstances increased the risk to her … . [Plaintiff] testified at her deposition that she had traversed the sidewalk on numerous previous occasions without incident before the incident at issue. She testified that it was a sunny day and there were no crowds, construction, or other obstructions to block her view of the sidewalk as she traversed it. Thus, through her testimony, the owners and the lessees established that the alleged defect was not only small in size, but was also in a well-illuminated location that [plaintiff] had previously traversed on numerous occasions and that nothing in the area obstructed her view of the location and the alleged defect. Chee v DiPaolo, 2016 NY Slip Op 02777, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY CAUSED BY AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE BASKETBALL COURT.

The First Department determined plaintiff assumed the risk of injury caused by an open and obvious defect in an outdoor basketball court:

… [P]laintiff, an experienced basketball player, voluntarily chose to play basketball on an outdoor court that had an open and obvious defect on its surface … . The crack and/or hole in the basketball court's surface that allegedly caused plaintiff's injury was one of the risks he assumed when he decided to play basketball on the court, which was located in a public park owned and maintained by defendants … . The photographs of the defect and plaintiff's testimony that nothing was blocking the defect before he stepped on it demonstrate that the defect was open and obvious … . Wallace v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 02763, 1st Dept 4-12-16


FACT THAT OBJECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS DID NOT RELIEVE DEFENDANT OF LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The First Department determent the fact that the object over which plaintiff tripped and fell was “open and obvious” did not relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law. Plaintiff tripped over a wheeled cart which had been in an aisle of defendant's discount store. A question of fact remained whether defendant maintained the store in a reasonably safe condition. That plaintiff saw the cart was relevant to plaintiff's comparative negligence:

Although plaintiff admitted that she saw the pulley bag before she tripped, so that it was an “open and obvious” condition, defendant failed to demonstrate that it fulfilled its broad obligation to maintain the store in a reasonably safe condition … . An issue of fact exists as to whether the placement of the pulley bag with its protruding metal stand, along with the other merchandise cluttering the store's aisles, was an inherently dangerous condition that presented a tripping hazard … . That plaintiff saw the bag before tripping does not require dismissal of the complaint, but is relevant to the issue of her comparative negligence … . Johnson-Glover v Fu Jun Hao Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02748, 1st Dept 4-12-16


QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DEFENSE APPLIED TO A REAR-END COLLISION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether the emergency defense applied in a rear-end collision. The defendant, in an affidavit in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, alleged an unidentified car suddenly turned into his path causing him to swerve and ultimately strike the back of plaintiff’s car. The dissent argued the accident could only have occurred because of defendant’s negligence:

We find that plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a prima facie showing of their entitlement to partial summary judgment on liability. A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie showing of negligence on the part of the rear driver … . Similarly, a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a), which obligates drivers to maintain safe distances between their cars and cars in front of them, and be aware of traffic conditions, including vehicle stoppages, is prima facie evidence of negligence … .

Defendants opposed, arguing that summary judgment was not warranted, because they had a valid emergency doctrine defense, which would preclude a summary finding of liability against them. The emergency doctrine recognizes that “when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context,” provided the actor had not created the emergency … . Maisonet v Roman, 2016 NY Slip Op 02725, 1st Dept 4-7-16

 

,

BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined the city, the property owner, the listing broker, the listing agent and the snow removal contractor owed no duty of care to plaintiff who slipped and fell on a sidewalk the day after snowfall and before anyone shoveled or treated the sidewalk. The city was not notified of the condition and did not create the condition. The property owner was not under a statutory duty to remove the snow. The listing broker, the listing agent and the snow removal contractor did not create the dangerous condition:

The City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not receive prior written notice of the snow and ice condition which caused the plaintiff’s accident, as required by section 24-11 of the Charter of the City of Yonkers … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to any exception to the prior written notice requirement, namely, whether the City affirmatively created the alleged defect, or whether the defect was created by the City’s special use of the property … . The City’s alleged failure to remove the snow and ice from the sidewalk, or to warn of a dangerous condition, were acts of omission, and not affirmative acts of negligence … .  * * *

Absent a statute or ordinance which clearly imposes liability upon an abutting landowner, only a municipality may be held liable for the negligent failure to remove snow and ice from a public sidewalk … . However, the owner of property abutting a public sidewalk will be held liable where it, or someone on its behalf, undertook snow and ice removal efforts which made the natural conditions more hazardous … . Here, although section 103-8 of the City Charter places the duty to keep sidewalks clear from snow and ice on the abutting landowner, the Charter does not expressly make the landowner liable for failure to perform that duty … . * * *

The Court of Appeals has identified three situations in which 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: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launche[s] 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” … . Any duty [the listing broker, agent and snow removal contractor] had with respect to the plaintiff arose exclusively out of the contracts each of them had with [the property owner]… . [The property owner] owed no statutory or common-law duty to the plaintiff because there was no statute which imposed liability upon it for the negligent failure to remove snow and ice from a public sidewalk, and neither [the property owner], nor anyone else on its behalf, undertook any snow removal efforts that made the conditions on the public sidewalk more hazardous. Rodriguez v County of Westchester, 2016 NY Slip Op 02635, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

NEGLIGENCE (BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF)/MUNICIPAL LAW (BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF)/SLIP AND FALL (BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF)

, , ,

LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Fahey, determined a New York City Local Law, which imposed a duty on the landlord to abate lead paint in an apartment where a child under the age of six “resides,” did not apply to an apartment where a child was cared for 50 hours per week. Plaintiff’s child was cared for during the day by grandmother in grandmother’s apartment. The child developed an elevated lead level. In order to sue the landlord, the landlord must have owed a statutory duty to the child to abate the lead in grandmother’s apartment. The majority held that the term “reside” in the Local Law did not encompass the child’s presence in the apartment 50 hours a week. Therefore the landlord owed no duty to the child:

Dictionaries from the relevant time period define “reside” as “to dwell permanently or continuously: occupy a place as one’s legal domicile” (Merriam Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1003 [9th ed 1986]) and “to have a settled abode for a time; have one’s residence or domicile” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1931 [1981]). According to Webster’s Third, “reside” is the “preferred term for expressing the idea that a person keeps or returns to a particular dwelling place as his fixed, settled, or legal abode” … . Black’s Law Dictionary notes that “residence” “is made up of fact and intention, the fact of abode and the intention of remaining, and is a combination of acts and intention. Residence implies something more than mere physical presence and something less than domicile” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1176 [5th ed 1979]). * * *

Nothing in the legislative history of Local Law 1 suggests that the City Council meant anything other than this understanding of the term “reside.” We presume the City was familiar with the common meaning and usage of the words it used as well as existing decisional law …, which, in this case, understood residence as something more than physical presence but something less than domicile — living in a particular place with the intent to retain it as a residence … . Had the City intended to expand the meaning of the word “reside” to include children who do not actually live in an apartment but spend significant amounts of time there, it could have used words to that effect … . Yaniveth R. v LTD Realty Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 02550, CtApp 4-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD PAINT, LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES)/LEAD PAINT (LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES)/LANDLORD-TENANT (LEAD PAINT, LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR CREATED THE ICE CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL.

The Third Department, in this slip and fall case, determined Inland, the owner of the shopping mall where plaintiff fell on ice, raised a question of fact whether the snow removal contractor, Hayes Paving, created the dangerous condition (i.e., launched an instrument of harm) by piling ice near a building which subsequently melted and refroze:

… [W]e conclude that a question of fact exists as to whether Hayes Paving negligently created a dangerous condition by piling chunks of ice against the Staples store building which, thereafter, melted and refroze into the patch of ice upon which plaintiff allegedly slipped … . Thus, Hayes Paving was not entitled to dismissal of Inland's third-party claim for contribution. Hannigan v Staples, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02506, 3rd Dept 3-31-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR CREATED THE ICE CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR CREATED THE ICE CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL)/CONTRACT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR CREATED THE ICE CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL)

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.

The Third Depatment, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined questions of fact had been raised about governmental immunity and tort liability arising from contract in a property-damage case arising from road renovation work. Village officials and the contractor hired to do the road work (Merritt) decided to allow what was thought to be a small water leak to remain unaddressed temporarily. The leak was apparently created when a fire hydrant was removed to accommodate the road work. At some point the water main burst, causing flooding and a mudslide which damaged plaintiffs' property. The questions before the court were whether the village should be allowed to amend its answer with a governmental-immunity affirmative defense, and whether an indemnification cross-claim against the contractor (Merritt) by the village should have been allowed. The Third Department answered both questions in the affirmative. Although maintenance of a water system for fire protection is a governmental function to which immunity applies, maintenance of the water system generally is a proprietary function, to which immunity would not apply. With respect to Merritt, although tort liability does not usually arise from a contract, here there was a question of fact whether Merritt “launched an instrument of harm” which would trigger liability in tort. With respect to whether governmental immunity applied, the court explained:

A threshold inquiry in determining if a municipality is entitled to immunity in a negligence action is “whether the municipal entity was engaged in a proprietary function or acted in a governmental capacity at the time the claim arose” … . Where the alleged negligence arose out of proprietary, rather than governmental acts, no immunity will attach and a municipality will generally be liable to the same extent as a private actor … . The maintenance of a municipal water system to provide water for the private use of residents has been deemed to be a proprietary function … . However, where the alleged negligence stems from municipal efforts to protect the safety of the public by “aggregating and supplying water for the extinguishment of fires,” it is engaged in a government function entitled to immunity … . These established rules can present challenges as applied to modern municipal water systems that are used to provide water to both homes and hydrants … . In such cases, where a municipality can be seen to be serving dual governmental and proprietary roles, we must look to “the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred” … . Billera v Merritt Constr., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02503, 3rd Dept 3-31-16

MUNCIPAL LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/CONTRACT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/NEGLIGENCE  (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)

FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined defendant's motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly denied. The defendant failed to demonstrate when the area was last cleaned and inspected. Evidence of routine maintenance is not enough:

Here, although the defendant's evening maintenance employee testified at his deposition about his regular cleaning routine for the building, he had no independent recollection of having cleaned the floor in question on the date of the plaintiff's accident. Furthermore, no deposition testimony was provided describing the condition of the floor in question on the date of the accident, including whether the maintenance employee had observed a water condition upon it. Since the defendant did not submit evidence regarding any specific inspection or cleaning of the area on the date of the accident, the defendant failed to establish that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition … . The defendant's submissions also failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it created the alleged dangerous condition … . Ansari v MB Hamptons, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02305, 2nd Dept 3-30-16

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SLIP AND FALL (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

,

STRIKING OF PLEADINGS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE.

The Fourth Department concluded sanctions for spoliation of evidence were appropriate, but striking defendant's pleadings was too severe a sanction. Plaintiff alleged injury from glass which fell out of defendant's (IGT's) video slot machine. Although the complaint was filed in 2008, the request to maintain the condition of the machine was not made until 2010 and the request to examine the machine was not made until 2011. The machine had been scrapped in the regular course of business in 2008:

… [W]e conclude that plaintiffs established that some sanction is warranted because IGT negligently failed to preserve the machine, but plaintiffs failed to show that the destruction of the machine was intentional or contumacious, to warrant the sanctions imposed by the court. To the contrary, the only evidence in the record concerning this issue is that IGT scrapped the machine in the normal course of business, as part of the removal and destruction of a large number of machines to create additional space in the casino. In addition, IGT established that the machine was removed from the casino at the request of the casino's owners, who were no longer parties to this action, which belies plaintiffs' contention that IGT removed and destroyed the machine for litigation purposes.

Contrary to plaintiffs' further contention, they failed to establish that the machine was destroyed before they had an opportunity to inspect it, and thus plaintiffs failed to establish that the extreme sanctions of striking IGT's answer and granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability against IGT were warranted … . Mahiques v County of Niagara, 2016 NY Slip Op 02190, 4th Dept 3-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (STRIKING OF PLEADINGS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (STRIKING OF PLEADINGS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)/SPOLIATION (STRIKING OF PLEADINGS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)

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