You are here: / Negligence

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PREEXISTING SNOW AND ICE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FALL.

The Second Department determined the defendant met his burden of demonstrating a storm was in progress when plaintiff slipped and fell, but plaintiff then raised a question of fact whether snow and ice which was there prior to the storm was the cause of the fall:

The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, including certified climatological data, a report from the plaintiffs’ own expert meteorologist, and the transcripts of the deposition testimony of the parties, demonstrated, prima facie, that a storm was in progress at the time of the subject accident … . The plaintiffs do not contend otherwise.

Accordingly, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff’s fall was caused by something other than precipitation from the storm in progress … . In order to do so, the plaintiffs were “required to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a slippery condition at the location where the [injured] plaintiff fell that existed prior to the storm, as opposed to precipitation from the storm in progress, and that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the preexisting condition” … . The plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact in this regard. The evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendant’s motion, which included the report of their expert meteorologist, certified climatological data, and the affidavits of the injured plaintiff and two nonparty witnesses, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff slipped and fell on old snow and ice that was the product of a prior storm, as opposed to precipitation from the storm in progress, and as to whether the defendant had constructive notice of the preexisting condition… . Burniston v Ranric Enters. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09395, 2nd Dept 12-23-15

NEGLIGENCE (DESPITE STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER PREEXISTING ICE AND SNOW WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (DESPITE STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER PREEXISTING ICE AND SNOW WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FALL)/STORM IN PROGRESS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PREEXISTING ICE AND SNOW WAS CAUSE OF FALL)

SUPERMARKET EMPLOYEES HAD NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN A CAR IN THE SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT.

The Third Department determined employees of Tops supermarket did not have a duty to come to the aid of decedent, who died in his parked car in the Tops parking lot. Decedent and companions were drinking and doing drugs. When decedent was unconscious, his companions placed him in his own car and allegedly told Tops employees decedent was in need of emergency aid. The court held that the Tops employees did not have a legal duty to aid decedent:

“In any negligence action, the threshold issue before the court is whether the defendant owed a legally recognized duty to the plaintiff” … . This is frequently a “difficult task [and,] [d]espite often sympathetic facts in a particular case before them, courts must be mindful of the precedential, and consequential, future effects of their rulings, and limit the legal consequences of wrongs to a controllable degree” … . Consonant with the premise that a moral duty does not equate with a legal duty … , it is the general rule that “one does not owe a duty to come to the aid of a person in peril” … . Exceptions to the general rule exist, such as, for example, a common carrier’s duty to take reasonable action to protect a passenger who is being assaulted … .

Here, although Tops was open to shoppers, this did not necessarily create an affirmative duty to come to the aid of anyone who was anywhere on its property no matter how unrelated such person’s presence was to Tops’ function as a grocery store. Decedent was not a customer of Tops, neither he nor his companions were on the premises for any activity related in any manner to Tops’ business, Tops’ employees did not participate in any fashion in the conduct of decedent’s companions, it is not alleged that Tops’ employees saw or had any contact with decedent on the premises, and Tops’ employees did not take any actions that put decedent in a worse position than the one in which his companions left him. Daily v Tops Mkts., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09336, 3rd Dept 12-17-15

NEGLIGENCE (NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT)/DUTY OF CARE (NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT)

WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT UPON THE TERMINATION OF TREATMENT CULMINATING IN THE IMPLANTATION OF A FERTILIZED DONOR EGG.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, over a partial dissent, determined that plaintiffs’ action for wrongful birth accrued upon the birth of the child, not when the procedure implanting a fertilized donated egg was complete. The plaintiffs alleged that a donor egg was not adequately screened for genetic defects and that, in fact, a genetic defect in the egg was passed on to plaintiffs’ child:

This is a medical malpractice action for “wrongful birth” … , in which it is alleged that defendants’ failure to perform adequate genetic screening of an egg donor for an in vitro fertilization resulted in the conception and birth of plaintiffs’ impaired child. The primary question raised on this appeal is whether plaintiffs’ wrongful birth cause of action accrued upon the termination of defendants’ treatment of the plaintiff mother, less than two months after the implantation of the embryo, or upon the birth of the infant several months later. We hold that the wrongful birth claim accrued upon the birth of the infant and, therefore, was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a) when this action was commenced within 2½ years after the birth. * * *

In the case of a claim for wrongful birth, “the parents’ legally cognizable injury is the increased financial obligation” of raising an impaired child … , … . Whether this legally cognizable injury will befall potential parents as the result of the gestation of an impaired fetus cannot be known until the pregnancy ends. Only if there is a live birth will the injury be suffered. Thus, until there is a live birth, the existence of a cognizable legal injury that will support a wrongful birth cause of action cannot even be alleged . Without legally cognizable damages, there is no legal right to relief, and “the Statute of Limitations cannot run until there is a legal right to relief” … . Accordingly, the statute of limitations begins to run on a wrongful birth claim upon the live birth of an impaired child, whose care and support will occasion the pecuniary damages the parents may seek to recover. B.F. v Reproductive Medicine Assoc. of N.Y., LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 09370, 1st Dept 12-17-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF CHILD)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF CHILD)/WRONGFUL BIRTH (CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF CHILD)

,

DOCTORS, WHO ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO WARN PATIENT OF DISORIENTING EFFECTS OF DRUGS, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE DRIVEN BY THE PATIENT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Stein (in which Judge Abdus-Salaam concurred), determined a medical malpractice complaint alleging defendant hospital and doctors owed a duty of care to plaintiff, who was injured by a patient, should not have been dismissed. The patient was treated with drugs which could impair her ability to drive but allegedly was not warned of that effect by the treating doctors.  Shortly after leaving the hospital, the patient crossed a double yellow line and struck plaintiff's vehicle. The Court of Appeals held that the injured plaintiff's complaint, which alleged the negligent failure to warn the patient of the impairment of the ability to drive, stated a cause of action, sounding in medical malpractice, against the defendant hospital and doctors:

Here, put simply, to take the affirmative step of administering the medication at issue without warning [the patient] about the disorienting effect of those drugs was to create a peril affecting every motorist in [the patient's] vicinity. Defendants are the only ones who could have provided a proper warning of the effects of that medication. Consequently, on the facts alleged, we conclude that defendants had a duty to plaintiffs to warn [the patient] that the drugs administered to her impaired her ability to safely operate an automobile … . Davis v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09229, CtApp 12-16-15

NEGLIGENCE (DOCTORS OWED DUTY OF CARE TO PERSON INJURED BY DRUGGED PATIENT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DOCTORS OWED DUTY OF CARE TO PERSON INJURED BY DRUGGED PATIENT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTIVE (FAILURE TO WARN PATIENT OF DISORIENTING EFFECT OF ADMINISTERED DRUGS)

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)

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