You are here: / Negligence

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

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendants in a slip and fall case. The plaintiff alleged she slipped on a patch of oil in a parking lot. The defendants failed to demonstrate when the area had last been inspected or cleaned:

To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident … . “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … .

In support of their motion, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, a lack of constructive notice of the allegedly hazardous condition that caused the subject accident, as they failed to submit any evidence as to when, prior to the accident, the area of the parking lot where the alleged slip and fall occurred, was last inspected or cleaned relative to the accident … . Bruni v Macy’s Corporate Servs., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09238, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED)/SLIP AND FALL (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED)

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NORMAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HORSEBACK RIDING WERE NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASED BY THE RIDING INSTRUCTOR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when she fell off a horse during riding instruction. The instructor had plaintiff execute a maneuver with her feet outside the stirrups. The plaintiff had told the instructor she could not do the maneuver and she fell when attempting it:

Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity ” consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation'” … . The doctrine operates to limit the scope of the defendant’s duty, and “it has been described [as] a principle of no duty’ rather than an absolute defense based upon a plaintiff’s culpable conduct” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . “The risks of falling from a horse or a horse acting in an unintended manner are inherent in the sport of horseback riding” … .

The primary assumption of risk doctrine does not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased … . “[A]wareness of risk is not to be determined in a vacuum. It is, rather, to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” … . Furthermore, “in assessing whether a defendant has violated a duty of care within the genre of tort-sports activities and their inherent risks, the applicable standard should include whether the conditions caused by the defendants’ negligence are unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport'” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish [their] prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the conduct of [the instructor] did not unreasonably increase [plaintiff’s] exposure to the risk of falling. Georgiades v Nassau Equestrian Ctr. at Old Mill, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09249, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, UNREASONABLE INCREASE OF RISK)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (UNREASONABLE INCREASE)

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY ON EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury on the effect of the defendant’s violation of a statute and/or a regulation required reversal of the defense verdict in this slip and fall case. The New York State Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act require eight-foot wide aisles for access to handicapped parking spots.  Plaintiff, who had a handicapped parking permit, slipped on a grassy slope after getting out of his car. The plaintiff’s expert testified the parking spot where plaintiff fell did not comply with the statutory/regulatory requirements for handicapped parking. The plaintiff requested the jury be instructed on the effect of a statutory violation (negligence per se) and the defendant requested the jury be instructed on the effect of a regulatory violation (some evidence of negligence). The judge denied both requests. The Second Department ordered a new trial:

Jury instructions should adequately convey “the sum and substance of the applicable law to be charged” … . A new trial is warranted when an error is “so significant that the jury was prevented from fairly considering the issues at trial” … .

“The general rule is that the violation of a statute that establishes a specific safety duty constitutes negligence per se” … . When evidence is presented that a defendant violated such a statute, the jury’s role is to determine whether the violation of that statute proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury (… PJI 2:25). Moreover, if proven, a violation of the Building Code of New York State can be considered by a jury as some evidence of negligence (… PJI 2:29…). * * *

Based on the evidence, the trial court should have charged the jury as to the language of the applicable sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act along with PJI 2:25 and the applicable sections of the Building Code of New York State and the Property Maintenance Code of New York State, in conjunction with PJI 2:29. The failure to do so cannot be considered harmless error since these provisions are applicable to the subject parking lot … . DiLallo v Katsan LP, 2015 NY Slip Op 09248, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS)/EVIDENCE (EFFECT OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS IN NEGLIGENCE CASE)/STATUTORY VIOLATION (NEGLIGENCE PER SE)/REGULATORY VIOLATIONS (SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A STOP SIGN AT AN ACCIDENT-PRONE INTERSECTION.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the municipality should have installed an all-way stop at an intersection where plaintiff was injured. A study of the intersection by the municipality, prompted by the number of accidents, was deemed inadequate:

A municipality owes a nondelegable duty to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition … . However, it is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway safety planning decision … . A municipality may be held liable only “when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan” … . * * *

“Once [a municipality] is made aware of a dangerous traffic condition it must undertake reasonable study thereof with an eye toward alleviating the danger” … . “Moreover, after the [municipality] implements a traffic plan it is under a continuing duty to review its plan in the light of its actual operation'” … . Under these circumstances, the City’s submissions revealed triable issues of fact regarding the adequacy of the … 2008 re-evaluation of its prior study which it undertook to complete, and the reasonableness of the City’s failure to install a stop sign … at the intersection under all of the attendant circumstances … . Langer v Xenias, 2015 NY Slip Op 09258. 2nd Dept 12-16-15

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LIABILITY, FAILURE INSTALL STOP SIGN)/MUNICIPAL LAW (LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL STOP SIGN)/TRAFFIC PLAN (MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL STOP SIGN)

,

NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFF; CITY WAS THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM SUIT.

The Second Department determined no special relationship existed between plaintiff, a city sanitation worker, and the city (NYC). Therefore, the city was protected from plaintiff’s suit by the doctrine of governmental immunity. Plaintiff was attacked by a participant in a community service program with whom plaintiff was working. The gravaman of plaintiff’s complaint was the city’s failure to provide security. The provision of security is a governmental, not proprietary, function. Therefore, absent a special relationship between the plaintiff and the city, the city was immune from suit. Giordanella v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09251, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/MUNICIPAL LAW (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION)

DEFENDANT UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that plaintiff did not know the cause of his slip and fall.  Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [P]laintiff, who testified at his depositions through a Spanish interpreter, testified at his first deposition that upon exiting the convenience store he “stepped like on a hole,” and that he “stepped on something” on the defective ramp which caused his ankle to twist and him to fall to the ground. He further testified at that deposition that “[w]hen [he] stepped, it was that [he] felt like something — – that something was not right underneath,” “[l]ike [he] stepped on something not solid.” That plaintiff could not initially identify the location of his accident, based upon photographs he was shown at his first deposition that depicted only the bottom portion of a door with no other identifying features, is hardly surprising and not dispositive. Upon being shown, at his second deposition, additional photographs depicting the full entrance area and front of the convenience store, plaintiff was able to definitively identify and mark with an “X” the area on the ramp which was “not leveled” and caused him to fall … . Taveras v 1149 Webster Realty Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09192, 1st Dept 12-15-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW CAUSE OF HIS FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL)

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND AN AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY TENANT FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM TENANT’S NEGLIGENCE.

The First Department determined defendant did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord and defendant was therefore properly held liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall. Plaintiff worked for nonparty tenant Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. (SSLM) with which defendant had a property management agreement. Although the agreement required SSLM to maintain the facility, defendant had access to the facility for inspection and agreed to indemnify SSLM for claims arising from SSLM’s negligence:

Defendant failed to establish that it was an out-of-possession landowner with limited liability to third persons injured on the property … . Its management agreement with SSLM gave SSLM “complete and full control and discretion in the operation … of the Facility” and required SSLM to “maintain the Facility … in conformity with applicable Legal Requirements.” However, defendant had “access to the Facility at any and all reasonable times for the purpose of inspection,” had access to SSLM’s books and records, and was required to fund operating shortfalls, and SSLM was required to report to defendant regularly and to maintain bank accounts in approved financial institutions “as agent for [defendant].”

Significantly, the management agreement requires defendant to indemnify SSLM for claims arising out of SSLM’s own negligence in the performance of its duties. This agreement to indemnify is analogous to the procurement of insurance, which constitutes evidence of ownership and control … . It evidences defendant’s intent to be responsible for any accidents on the property. But for the fortuity of plaintiff’s being an employee who was barred from suing his employer, defendant would be responsible, through the indemnification provision, for his injuries. Waring v Sunrise Yonkers SL, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09174, 1st Dept 12-10-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT NOT AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES)/LANDLORD-TENANT (DEFENDANT NOT AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES)/OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD (DEFENDANT NOT AN OUT-OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES)

,

ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY TO STUDENT-ATHLETE’S PARTICIPATION IN UNSUPERVISED “HORSEPLAY;” SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff student was injured when, during an unsupervised period of time prior to the beginning of football practice, a blocking sled was being misused to catapult players into the air. Plaintiff fractured both wrists. The Second Department held there was a question of fact re: the negligent supervision cause of action, and further held that the assumption of risk defense did not apply to the “horseplay” which resulted in plaintiff’s injury. With regard to assumption of the risk, the court wrote:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is most persuasively justified for its utility in facilitating ” free and vigorous participation in athletic activities'” … . By placing the risk of participation on the participants themselves, rather than on the sponsor, the doctrine encourages sponsorship, which leads to more opportunities to participate in sports or other recreational activities … . The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not applicable to the conduct at issue in this case. …[T]he use of the blocking sled to catapult each other into the air is not the sort of “socially valuable voluntary activity” that the doctrine seeks to encourage … . Furthermore, the defendants did not establish that the commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of football generally and flow from such participation on the football team included the risk of sustaining injury after being catapulted through the air by a blocking sled … . Duffy v Long Beach City Sch. Dist.. 2015 NY Slip Op 09065. 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATIION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF STUDENTS)/NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, SCHOOL SPORTS, HORSEPLAY)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (STUDENTS)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (SCHOOL SPORTS, HORSEPLAY)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HORSEPLAY)

,

CITY (NYC), NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER PURSUANT TO RULES OF CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

The Second Department determined that the city (NYC) was responsible for maintenance of grates or covers on sidewalks pursuant to the Rules of the City of New York Department of Transportation. Therefore plaintiff, who allegedly fell because a sidewalk hydrant valve cover was missing, could not sue the abutting landowners:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York imposes liability for injuries resulting from negligent sidewalk maintenance on the abutting property owners. However, Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 2-07(b) provides that owners of covers or gratings on a street are responsible for monitoring the condition of those covers and gratings and the area extending 12 inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware, and for ensuring that the hardware is flush with the surrounding street surface. “34 RCNY 2-01 includes a sidewalk’ within the definition of street'” … . Accordingly, the City, and not the defendants, was responsible for maintaining the condition of the area where the plaintiff fell … . “[T]here is nothing in section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York indicating that the City Council intended to supplant the provisions of 34 RCNY 2-07(b) and to allow a plaintiff to shift the statutory obligation of the owner of the cover or grating to the abutting property owner” … . Torres v Sander’s Furniture, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09091 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

 NEGLIGENCE (CITY [NYC], NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)/SLIP AND FALL (CITY [NYC], NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)/MUNICIPAL LAW (CITY [NYC]], NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)/TRANSPORTATION, NYC DEPARTMENT OF (RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)

,

MANUFACTURER OF A TUBE SLIDE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WHERE THE TUBE SLIDE WAS LOCATED ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; INFANT PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN CLIMBING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE TUBE SLIDE.

The Second Department determined both the manufacturer (Slip N Slide) of a tube slide (an enclosed plastic spiral tube) and the property owner (Philip Howard) where the tube slide was located were entitled to summary judgment. Infant plaintiff (ten years old) was injured when she fell while climbing on the outside of the tube slide. The Second Department determined the dangers of climbing on the outside of the tube were obvious and the tube slide was not inherently dangerous or defectively designed. In addition, the property owner demonstrated it did not create the hazardous condition or have constructive notice of it:

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Swing N Slide established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the tube slide was not inherently dangerous or otherwise defectively designed … . In addition, as here, “there is no liability for failure to warn where [the] risks and dangers are so obvious that they can ordinarily be appreciated by any consumer to the same extent that a formal warning would provide . . . or where they can be recognized simply as a matter of common sense” … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Swing N Slide’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against … .

Philip Howard also was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. “A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk'” … . “A defendant in a premises liability case may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, inter alia, by establishing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient time to remedy it, or that the accident was not foreseeable” … .

Here, Philip Howard demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that the tube slide, which was neither inherently dangerous nor defectively designed, was installed and maintained in a reasonably safe condition. Moreover, there is no duty imposed upon a landlord to supervise children who are properly upon its premises … . Moseley v Philip Howard Apts. Tenants Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09080, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE CLIMBING ON OUTSIDE OF TUBE SLIDE)/PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE CLIMBING ON THE OUTSIDE OF A TUBE SLIDE)

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