You are here: / Negligence
,

Criteria for Amending a Complaint to Replace “John Does” with Named Defendants Explained

Plaintiff alleged he was injured when tackled by police officers. The officers were named in the complaint as “john does.” After the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to name the officers involved. The Second Department determined the motion was properly denied because plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in discovering the officers’ names:

In order to employ the procedural “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” mechanism made available by CPLR 1024, a plaintiff must show that he or she made timely efforts to identify the correct party before the statute of limitations expired … . “[W]hen an originally-named defendant and an unknown Jane Doe’ [or John Doe’] party are united in interest, i.e. employer and employee, the later-identified party may, in some instances, be added to the suit after the statute of limitations has expired pursuant to the relation-back’ doctrine of CPLR 203(f), based upon postlimitations disclosure of the unknown party’s identity” … . The moving party seeking to apply the relation-back doctrine to a later-identified “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” defendant has the burden, inter alia, of establishing that diligent efforts were made to ascertain the unknown party’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish that they exercised due diligence to discover the identity of the John Doe defendants prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. There is no indication in the record that the plaintiffs engaged in any pre-action disclosure or made any Freedom of Information Law requests … . Moreover, there is no indication that the plaintiffs sought assistance from either the Criminal Court or the Supreme Court to learn the identities of the individual officers before the statute of limitations had run … . Although the plaintiffs maintain that, due to a pending investigation by the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, they did not learn the identities of the subject officers until the injured plaintiff’s criminal trial, the plaintiffs’ submissions failed to show that they diligently sought to gain access to the records contained in the file for the criminal proceeding prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Holmes v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07819, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

Criteria for Property Owner’s Liability for an Assault by an Intoxicated Guest Explained

The Second Department noted that the owners of property were not liable for injuries stemming an assault by an intoxicated guest at a party hosted by the property owners’ daughter.  The property owners demonstrated they were out of town when the party was held and did not know their daughter held such parties:

Under a theory of common-law negligence, a landowner may have responsibility for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest …, although liability may be imposed only for injuries that occurred on a defendant’s property, or in an area under the defendant’s control, where the defendant had the opportunity to supervise the intoxicated guest and was reasonably aware of the need for such control … . “Without the requisite awareness [of the risk or threat], there is no duty” … .

Here, the appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence insofar as asserted against them. The evidence submitted in support of the appellants’ motion demonstrated that they were out of town when the party took place at their home, that they had not authorized their daughter Monica to have a party, and that they were unaware of its occurrence. Moreover, the evidence demonstrated that they had no knowledge that, prior to the subject party, their daughter had thrown any parties while they were out of town at which individuals under the age of 21 were drinking alcohol. Thus, the appellants had no opportunity to control [the assailant’s] conduct, nor were they aware of the necessity therefor, both of which are prerequisites to imposing liability upon a landowner in these circumstances … . Heyman v Harooni, 2015 NY Slip Op 07818, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

Plaintiff’s Own Negligence Broke Any Causal Chain Between Defendant’s Negligence and Plaintiff’s Injury

The Second Department determined that, under the facts, proximate cause could be determined as a matter of law and plaintiff’s negligence was the superseding cause of his injury. When plaintiff was unable to access second floor offices defendant suggested that plaintiff go to the third floor and drop down to the second floor balcony. Plaintiff was injured doing so. The court held that plaintiff’s own negligence broke any causal chain between the defendant’s negligence and the injury:

“Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … . “However, the issue of proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the … defendants in support of their motion established, prima facie, that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the injured plaintiff’s negligence in dropping himself down from the third floor balcony to the terrace on the second floor. Even assuming the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations that the … defendants were negligent and that [a defendant] suggested that the injured plaintiff try to gain entry to the second floor offices by climbing down from the third floor balcony, the injured plaintiff’s reckless act of dropping down from a balcony to a terrace on the floor below broke any causal chain stemming from the Han defendants’ alleged negligence, and was itself the superseding cause of the injured plaintiff’s harm … . Sang Woon Lee v Il Mook Choi, 2015 NY Slip Op 07829, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

,

No Special Duty Owed by School District to Adult Employees

The Second Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendant school district in a suit brought by a school bus driver injured by a student. Although the district owes a special duty to students, no such duty is owed to adult employees:

“Liability for a claim that a municipality negligently exercised a governmental function turns upon the existence of a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public'” … . While a school district owes a special duty to its students to adequately supervise them to prevent foreseeable injuries to fellow students, that duty does not extend to adults … . Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not owe the injured plaintiff a special duty … . Guerrieri v New York City Dept./Bd. of Educ., 2015 NY Slip Op 07816, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

,

Elderly Patient’s Fall from an Examining Table Implicated a Duty of Care Which Takes Into Account Patient’s Infirmities/Elderly and Infirm Patient’s Fall from Examining Table Sounds in Medical Malpractice, Not Ordinary Negligence

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined a new trial was necessary in a case stemming from 81-year-old plaintiff’s decedent’s fall from an examining table in a doctor’s office. The Third Department found that the trial judge fashioned a jury instruction which erroneously included premises liability principles and erroneously failed to take into account the particular infirmities of plaintiff’s decedent. In addition the trial court erroneously determined the case sounded in negligence, as opposed to medical malpractice:

Recovery in a premises liability action is predicated on “ownership, occupancy, control or special use of [a] property” where a dangerous or defective condition exists … . Here, decedent neither alleged that [defendant’s] liability arose from its ownership of dangerous or defective premises nor that any defects or dangerous conditions existed … . Instead, decedent asserted that [defendant] was liable for the acts and omissions of its employees in failing to recognize the need for, or provide decedent with, adequate assistance and supervision — an analysis unrelated to the physical condition of the medical office or the legal principles underlying premises liability. Supreme Court’s attempt to combine the two concepts resulted in an instruction that improperly advised the jury that decedent was required to prove that the premises were unsafe. Moreover, the instruction confusingly directed the jury to evaluate the actions of the medical assistant twice, first by determining whether her actions were “reasonably safe” and then — without clarifying the distinction, if there is one — whether those same actions were negligent.

The modified instruction further misstated the threshold issue of the applicable duty of care. “Although the existence of a duty is a question of law to be determined by the courts, the factfinder must be instructed on the nature and scope of such duty so as to ascertain any breach thereof” … . The modified instruction used the language of PJI 2:90 to charge the jury that “[t]he possessor of a building has a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the protection of all persons whose presence is reasonably foreseeable,” followed by new language advising the jury that “[a] facility also has a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to ensure that no unnecessary harm befalls a patient.” The first of the two statements pertains to premises liability and, as previously discussed, is inapplicable here. The second statement, although not inapplicable to a negligence analysis, is incomplete. It is well settled that a medical facility used by persons who may be ill, disabled or otherwise vulnerable “ha[s] a duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence in safeguarding a patient, based in part on the capacity of the patient to provide for his [or her] own safety” … . “The degree of reasonable care is measured by the physical and mental infirmities of the patient[] as the [facility’s] officials and employees know them” … . * * *

The assessment of a patient’s risk of falling as a result of his or her medical condition, and the patient’s consequent need for assistance, protective equipment or supervision, are medical determinations that sound in malpractice … . Likewise, whether Horizon breached applicable standards of care for medical offices in supervising and assisting decedent in view of her medical condition “necessitates a comparison to the standard of care customarily exercised by [comparable medical facilities] . . . [that] cannot be determined without a full appreciation and understanding of the operational demands and practices of [such facilities]” and raises issues of malpractice rather than negligence … .

Expert testimony is a necessary part of a malpractice action, as the plaintiff is required to establish the relevant professional standard of care … . This case hinges upon a malpractice standard. Martuscello v Jensen, 2015 NY Slip Op 07711, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, ,

The State’s “Donate Life Registry” (Re: Consent to Organ Donation) Is a Governmental, Not Proprietary, Function

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the “donate life registry,” which is based upon consent to organ donation indicated on driver’s license renewal applications, was a governmental, not a proprietary, function. Therefore the state may not be held liable for negligence with respect to organ donation absent a special relationship. No special relationship was alleged here. The lawsuit alleged claimant’s mother did not consent to the donation of her organs and that the Department of Health negligently interpreted a drawn line on the renewal application as a signature. The Court of Claims had upheld the “violation of the right of sepulcher” cause of action. The opinion includes detailed discussions of the law surrounding governmental versus proprietary functions, as well as the nature of governmental involvement in organ donation:

Quintessential examples of purely governmental functions include police and fire protection … and traffic regulation … . On the other hand, a governmental entity acts in a purely proprietary capacity when it serves as a landlord by virtue of its ownership and maintenance of property … . In determining where along the continuum a governmental entity’s challenged conduct falls, it is necessary to examine “‘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'”… . * * *

By establishing the Donate Life Registry and facilitating the identification of organ and tissue donors and the making of anatomical gifts through DMV applications and renewals, defendant is protecting and promoting the health and welfare of the public through the exercise of its general police powers. It is axiomatic that “‘[p]rotecting health and safety is one of municipal government’s most important duties'”… . Drever v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07726, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Inadequate Pain and Suffering Damages Verdict Properly Set Aside

The Second Department determined the jury’s pain and suffering damages award in a slip and fall case was against the weight of the evidence and Supreme Court properly set the damages verdict aside:

After a trial on the issue of damages, the jury awarded the plaintiff the sum of $20,000 for past pain and suffering and $0 for future pain and suffering. The trial court correctly granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages, as that verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The jury’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for future pain and suffering was inconsistent with the evidence that her shoulder injury was permanent in nature … . The award for past pain and suffering was also contrary to the weight of the evidence, as it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Santana v Western Beef Retail, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07639, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

,

School District Failed to Demonstrate It Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of Student’s Potential to Harm Other Students

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The district failed to demonstrate it did not have actual or constructive notice of a student’s potential for harming other students:

“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” … . “An injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act” … .

* * * [The school district’s] submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the School District had actual or constructive notice of the fellow student’s potential for causing harm, and whether, under the circumstances, the School District provided adequate supervision during the field trip … . Lennon v Cornwall Cent. School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 07628,, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, ,

Forum Selection and Time Limitation Clauses in Cruise Ship Ticket Enforceable

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the forum selection and time limitation clauses in a “Carnival” cruise ship ticket were enforceable. The passenger’s personal injury complaint was dismissed:

A contractual forum selection clause contained in a cruise passenger ticket is generally enforceable as long as it has been reasonably communicated to the passenger and does not violate notions of fundamental fairness, and the submission thereof constitutes documentary evidence that may provide a proper basis for dismissal of an action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . Here, Carnival’s submissions established that the plaintiffs’ contract of carriage included a clause requiring that any disputes between the parties “shall be litigated, if at all, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, or as to those lawsuits to which the Federal Courts of the United States lack subject matter jurisdiction, before a court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A. to the exclusion of the Courts of any other county, state or country.” Furthermore, the contract provided that an action to recover damages for personal injuries “shall not be maintainable unless filed within one year after the date of the injury.” Carnival also established that the plaintiffs had a reasonable opportunity to review their tickets, and there is no allegation of fraud or overreaching … . Fritsche v Carnival Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07618, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, , ,

No “Special Relationship” Between School District and Teacher Injured by Student

The Second Department determined the absence of a special relationship between the city/school district and a teacher injured by a student required dismissal of the teacher’s action. Although a special relationship exists between a school district and the minor students, a special relationship exists between a school district and a teacher only in limited circumstances:

A school district may not be held liable for the negligent performance of its governmental function of supervising children in its charge, at least in the absence of a special duty to the person injured … . Although a school district owes a special duty to its minor students, that duty does not extend to teachers, administrators, or other adults on or off school premises … .

With regard to teachers, administrators, or other adults on or off school premises, a special relationship with a municipal defendant can be formed in three ways: ” (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation'” … .

Here, as the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the school defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe the plaintiff a special duty… . Brumer v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07611, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

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