You are here: / Negligence

Umpire Assumed the Risk of Being Struck by a Bat Thrown by Batter

The Third Department determined that an umpire assumed the risk of being struck by a bat thrown by a batter as he ran toward first base. Had the bat been thrown intentionally or recklessly the assumption of the risk doctrine would not apply. There was no admissible evidence the bat was thrown recklessly (in anger):

Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, a participant, including an umpire, in a sport such as softball “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” … . Such risks include getting hit with a ball or a bat during a baseball game, particularly for an experienced participant … . That said, “participants are not deemed to have assumed risks resulting from the reckless or intentional conduct of others” … .

… [W]e find unpersuasive plaintiffs’ claim that getting hit with a bat is not an inherent risk in a slow pitch, 65-year-old and older softball game. Neither the age of the players nor the velocity of the pitch negates the readily apparent risk of a batter releasing the bat after a swing. The record shows that [plaintiff] has extensive experience as an umpire and no claim is made that defendant intentionally threw the bat at him. The issue distills to whether defendant recklessly threw the bat, creating a risk “‘over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport'” … . Morrisey v Haskell, 2015 NY Slip Op 08021, 3rd Dept 11-5-15

 

Driver In Middle Car of Chain Reaction Accident Entitled to Summary Judgment

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should have been granted to the driver of the middle car in a chain reaction accident. The evidence demonstrated the driver had stopped behind the lead car and was propelled into the lead car when struck from behind:

In a multi-vehicle, chain reaction accident, when the operator of a vehicle that was propelled into another vehicle by a following vehicle presents evidence that he or she was able to safely bring his or her vehicle to a stop behind the lead vehicle before being struck in the rear by a following vehicle, that operator has established his or her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Thus, “[i]n chain collision accidents, the operator of the middle vehicle may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle” … . Niosi v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 07957, 2nd Dept 11-4-15

 

Plaintiff-Pedestrian’s Acts Constituted Sole Proximate Cause

The Second Department determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because plaintiff’s acts constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries.  Plaintiff stepped out between two cars in an attempt to cross the street:

Under the circumstances presented here, the … defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the conduct of the plaintiff in crossing the street at a location other than at an intersection, while emerging from between stopped cars, was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that [defendant] was free from fault despite the plaintiff’s allegation that she failed to avoid a collision with the plaintiff … . Balliet v North Amityville Fire Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 07943, 2nd Dept. 11-4-15

 

, ,

Past Recollection Recorded and Hearsay Inadmissible at Trial Properly Considered in Opposition to Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion

The Third Department determined a statement made by defendant’s employee [Mackey] near the time of plaintiff’s slip and fall was admissible as past recollection recorded and was properly considered in opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion. In addition, hearsay which would not be admissible at trial was sufficiently corroborated to be considered in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s motion was properly denied:

… “[T]he requirements for admission of a memorandum of a past recollection are generally stated to be that the witness observed the matter recorded, the recollection was fairly fresh when recorded or adopted, the witness can presently testify that the record correctly represented his [or her] knowledge and recollection when made, and the witness lacks sufficient present recollection of the recorded information” … . Here, Mackey testified that, beyond being upset that her cousin was hurt, she was unable to remember the particulars of the event, but she did recall filling out and signing a document recording her memories at the time. In this document, Mackey averred that she watched plaintiff fall by the Coinstar machine in an area that had been checked by the front-end maintenance crew approximately one hour prior to the incident. In the blank space next to the words “Condition at the time of last check prior to accident:” Mackey wrote, “ice machine is always leaking.” Mackey recalled completing this document within days of the incident and explained that the form did not help to refresh her recollection of the events. On this basis, we agree with Supreme Court’s ruling that Mackey’s written statement was admissible as a past recollection recorded and, as such, properly considered in the context of defendant’s motion for summary judgment …

Further, in keeping with the principles that, “[t]o grant summary judgment, it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented” … and such motion should be denied if there is any doubt as to the existence of such issues …, we likewise find no error in Supreme Court’s consideration of Mackey’s oral statement, notwithstanding its likely inadmissibility at trial. With that said, however, we acknowledge that, although “hearsay evidence that is inadmissible at trial may be sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, there must be some additional competent evidence to support the motion or an excuse for the failure to present proof in admissible form” … . Zupan v Price Chopper Operating Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07893, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

, ,

Out-of-Possession Landlord and Lessee Are Not “United In Interest” Such that the Lessee Could Be Added to the Complaint After the Statute of Limitations Had Run (Relation-Back Doctrine)

The Third Department determined Supreme Court, in a snow-ice slip and fall case, properly denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, after the statute of limitations had run, to add the lessee of the property (Albany Medical Center Hospital [AMCH]) as a defendant. The defendant out-of-possession landlord demonstrated, under the terms of the lease, AMCH had the responsibility for maintaining the property in a safe condition. Because the out-of-possession landlord and AMCH were not “united in interest,” the relation-back doctrine did not apply:

… [T]he relation back doctrine permits a plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a defendant even though the statute of limitations had expired at the time of amendment so long as three requirements are met: “(1) both claims must arise out of the same occurrence, (2) [the] defendant and [the new party] were united in interest, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (3) [the new party] knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by [the] plaintiff as to the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against it as well ” … . While there is no dispute that the first prong of this test is satisfied under these circumstances, we agree with Supreme Court that defendant and AMCH do not share unity of interest inasmuch as they cannot be said to “stand or fall together” … . “Indeed, unless the original defendant and new party are vicariously liable for the acts of the other[,] there is no unity of interest between them” … . McLaughlin v 22 New Scotland Ave., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 07883, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

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

 

Church Had No Special Relationship With Plaintiff, Church Had No Authority to Exercise Control Over Conduct of Man Who Injured Plaintiff/Therefore Church Did Not Owe Plaintiff a Duty of Care

The Second Department determined the defendant church was properly granted summary judgment in a case stemming from an altercation between, Edward,  the husband of a church employee (Rhonda), and plaintiff, a pedestrian on a public sidewalk (presumably outside the church). It was alleged that Rhonda encouraged and facilitated an assault on plaintiff by Edward. The respondeat superior cause of action was properly dismissed because Rhonda was not acting within the scope of her employment during the altercation. And the negligence cause of action was properly dismissed because there was no special relationship between the church and the plaintiff, and, therefore, the church did not owe plaintiff a duty of care:

” For a defendant to be held liable in tort, it must have owed the injured party a duty of care'” … . “The existence and extent of a duty is a question of law” … .

“Generally, there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others,’ even where, as a practical matter, the defendant could have exercised such control … . A duty to control the conduct of others requires a special relationship: “a relationship between defendant and a third person whose actions expose plaintiff to harm such as would require the defendant to attempt to control the third person’s conduct; or a relationship between the defendant and plaintiff requiring defendant to protect the plaintiff from the conduct of others” … .

Here, the church made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging negligence, insofar as asserted against it, by establishing that owed no duty to the plaintiff. Its submissions demonstrated that it had no relationship with the plaintiff, who was a pedestrian on a public sidewalk … . Further, the church established that it did not have the necessary authority or ability to exercise the requisite control over Edward’s conduct so as to give rise to a duty to control his conduct for the protection of off-premises pedestrians … . Rodriguez v Judge, 2015 NY Slip Op 07828, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

,

Defendant-Driver’s Admission and Prior Inconsistent Statement, Contained in the Police Accident Report, Should Have Been Admitted in Evidence

The Second Department reversed a defense verdict in a vehicular accident case because an admission and prior inconsistent by the defendant-driver, included in a police accident report, was not admitted in evidence:

On appeal, the plaintiff contends, among other things, that the Supreme Court erred in precluding her from admitting into evidence that portion of the police accident report which contained [defendant-driver’s] statement that he never observed the plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the accident. This statement was admissible against the defendant as an admission, since it tended to inculpate the defendant in connection with a material fact … . Moreover, that same statement in the police accident report was admissible as a prior inconsistent statement … . Under the circumstances presented her, the error in precluding the admission of that portion of the police accident report into evidence cannot be considered harmless, as it bore on the ultimate issue to be determined by the jury … . Brown v URS Midwest, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07809, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

,

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

 

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