You are here: / Negligence
,

Criteria for Liability for Acts of Independent Contractor and for Negligent Hiring of an Independent Contractor Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)

Plaintiff, who was working for the roofing contractor on a building damaged by fire, was asked by a salvager to help move a refrigerator. Plaintiff agreed and was injured while moving the refrigerator down some stairs.  The salvager was allowed to go through the building and pick out the items the salvager wanted (which included the refrigerator). Plaintiff sued the building owner (E & M). In finding the plaintiff did not have a cause of action against E & M, the First Department explained the relevant law with respect to liability for the acts of an independent contractor (the salvager) and negligent hiring of an independent contractor:

E & M established that even if it hired the salvager as an independent contractor, there is no basis to impose liability on it. “As a general rule, a principal is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor because, unlike the master-servant relationship, principals cannot control the manner in which independent contractors perform their work” … . Although “liability will attach where the employer is negligent in selecting, instructing or supervising the contractor, where the contractor is employed to do work that is inherently dangerous or where the employer bears a specific nondelegable duty'” …, these exceptions are inapplicable… . * * *

Plaintiff’s contention that issues of fact exist as to whether E & M or its principal were negligent in selecting the salvager, i.e. whether they failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining whether he was qualified to move a refrigerator down a flight of stairs, is also unavailing. “[A]n employer has the right to rely on the supposed qualifications and good character of the contractor, and is not bound to anticipate misconduct on the contractor’s part….” … . Thus, an employer “is not liable on the ground of his having employed an incompetent or otherwise unsuitable contractor unless it also appears that the employer either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care might have ascertained, that the contractor was not properly qualified to undertake the work” … . “Cases finding employers liable for negligent hiring have done so only in very specific circumstances” … not present here. There is no competent proof that E & M knew or should have known of any propensity on the part of the salvager or his helper to engage in the conduct that allegedly caused the accident … . Furthermore, plaintiff has not shown that E & M had any reason to question the qualifications of the salvager, who E & M knew had been used by its plumber on a prior occasion, to move a refrigerator … . Moreover, there was no reason for E & M to suspect that the salvager would enlist an employee of the roofing contractor to assist him. Nelson v E&M 2710 Clarendon LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05391, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

, ,

Construction at County Airport Was a Governmental Function—County is Therefore “Immune” from a Suit Alleging the Construction Caused a Highway White-Out Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s-Decedent’s Death in a Collision

Plaintiffs alleged that construction by the defendant-county caused snow to blow across the highway leading to the “white-out” which resulted in plaintiff’s decedent’s death in a collision. The Fourth Department determined the county was immune from suit because the relevant construction was a governmental, not proprietary function, and the county did not owe a special duty to the plaintiffs:

… “[I]f the [municipal defendant] acted in a proprietary role, i.e., when its activities essentially substitute for or supplement traditionally private enterprises . . . , ordinary rules of negligence apply. If, however, the [defendant] acted in a governmental capacity, i.e., when its acts are undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to general police powers . . . , the court must undertake a separate inquiry to determine whether the [defendant] owes a special duty to the injured party. In the event that the plaintiff fails to prove such a duty, the [defendant] is insulated from liability” … . A municipal defendant can therefore establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that its allegedly negligent acts were undertaken in a governmental rather than a proprietary capacity, and that it did not owe the plaintiff a special duty.

We conclude that defendants established on their motion that the construction of the tunnels and retaining wall was undertaken in a governmental capacity … , inasmuch as the construction was the result of defendants’ discretionary decision-making after defendants consulted with experts to determine how to make improvements to the Airport property in compliance with, inter alia, safety regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration … . We further conclude that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendants owed a special duty to plaintiffs or were acting in a proprietary capacity … . Klepanchuk v County of Monroe, 2015 NY Slip Op 05323, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Only an “Unexcused” Violation of a Provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Constitutes Negligence Per Se—Damages May Include Cost of Demolition of a Building Which Has Been Deemed a Safety Hazard

In the course of a decision finding questions of fact precluded summary judgment, the Fourth Department explained the doctrine of negligence per se as it relates to a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and the recoverable damages when property damage requires demolition of a building which was rendered a safety hazard.  The defendant-driver here struck plaintiff’s building which was then destroyed by fire.  The cost of demolition, which the town had ordered because the building was a safety hazard, exceeded the fair market value of the building prior to the accident. The court noted that the demolition costs could be recoverable damages. The court further noted that only the “unexcused” violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se.  Therefore the defendant’s guilty plea to a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation could be excused by the jury if the jury determined the driver acted to avoid an object in the road. In that situation, the violation would only constitute “some evidence” of negligence:

It is well settled that “the fact that [the] driver entered a plea of guilty to a Vehicle and Traffic Law offense is only some evidence of negligence and does not establish his negligence per se” … . Rather, it is the “unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [that] constitutes negligence per se” … . If a trier of fact accepts as true the position that the driver swerved to avoid an object in the road, the jury may excuse the driver’s alleged negligence, in which case defendant would not have any vicarious liability for the accident … . * * *

It is well settled that the standard for assessing damages to property is the lesser of replacement cost or diminution in market value … . Here, it is undisputed that the cost of the required demolition exceeds the fair market value of the property before the accident. Defendant contends that plaintiffs’ damages are limited to the market value of the property before the accident, with no consideration of demolition costs, inasmuch as the full market value of the property before the accident is less than the repair or replacement cost. We agree with plaintiffs, however, that demolition costs are recoverable where the property to be demolished constitutes a “safety hazard beyond repair” … . There are also situations in which a property may be deemed to have a negative market value, i.e., where the cost to remediate the property exceeds the market value of the property … . Shaw v Rosha Enters., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05305, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

Ordinance Imposing a Duty Upon Abutting Property Owners to Keep Sidewalks in Good Repair Raised a Question of Fact whether a Defect Caused by a Tree Root Should Have Been Repaired by the Defendant—The Defect Was Not So Significant As to Allow a Determination of Defendant’s Liability as a Matter of Law

The Fourth Department determined the existence of an ordinance imposing upon abutting property owners the duty to maintain the sidewalk created a question of fact whether defendant breached that duty. Apparently the defect was caused by a root from a tree on village property which defendant alleged he had no authority to disturb. The ordinance, however did not include any exceptions to the duty to repair.  The defect was not of such significance that summary judgment on liability as a matter of law was warranted:

… “[I]t is well established that, as an abutting landowner, [defendant] is not liable for injuries sustained as the result of a defect in the sidewalk unless[, inter alia,] . . . there is a local ordinance charging [defendant] with the duty to maintain and repair the sidewalk and imposing liability for injuries resulting from [defendant’s] failure to do so” … . Here, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted relevant portions of the General Code of the Village of Hamburg (Village), which charges landowners such as defendant with the duty to “repair, keep safe and maintain any sidewalk abutting [the landowner’s] premises,” and imposes liability on the landowner “for any injury or damage by reason of omission or failure to repair, keep safe, and maintain such sidewalk” (Village of Hamburg General Code § 203-26 [B]; see § 203-28 [A] [2]).

We conclude that, by submitting that local ordinance, plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether defendant breached the duty imposed on it to maintain the sidewalk abutting its property. Although defendant contends that the alleged defect in the sidewalk was created by a tree root that it had no authority to disturb because it originated from a tree on property owned and maintained by the Village, we note that the local ordinance contains no exceptions to the duty imposed on abutting landowners to maintain the sidewalk, even if the allegedly dangerous condition was created by a root extending from Village property. In any event, it cannot be said as a matter of law that defendant could not have repaired the alleged defect in the sidewalk without cutting the tree root that purportedly created it … .

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in granting that part of plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of negligence against defendant, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. “Generally, a sidewalk defect presents an issue of fact for a jury . . . , unless . . . the defect is so trivial as to warrant disposition [in defendant’s favor] on summary judgment” … . Here, we cannot conclude that the alleged defect, as depicted in photographs included in the record, is of such significance that defendant may be held liable as a matter of law … . Shatzel v 152 Buffalo St., Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 05333, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

, ,

Court Properly Ordered Further Deposition of County Employee and the Deposition of the Commissioner of Public Works Based Upon Plaintiff’s Showing the Witness Previously Provided Did Not Have Sufficient Knowledge

The Fourth Department noted that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the further deposition of a county employee and the deposition of the Commissioner of Public Works concerning the maintenance of a section of the road where plaintiff’s-decedent’s car left the road and struck a pole.  The employee’s prior testimony was incomplete because he could not recall relevant information. And, although the county can determine who should be deposed on its behalf, the court can order the deposition of a specific witness where the plaintiff shows the witness previously produced did not have sufficient knowledge:

“A trial court has broad discretion in supervising the discovery process, and its determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion” … . We note with respect to the employee that he admitted at his initial deposition that he could not recall specific details relevant to plaintiffs’ theory of the County’s liability without reviewing the documents that subsequently were produced by the County. We thus conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in directing the further deposition of the employee concerning those documents.

We likewise conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in directing the County to produce the Commissioner for a deposition. “Although a municipality, in the first instance, has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for a deposition, a plaintiff may demand production of additional witnesses when (1) the officers or employees already deposed had insufficient knowledge or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the person sought for deposition possesses information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case” … . Here, the record establishes that the two employees previously produced by the County have at most a general understanding of the reconstruction project contemplated by the County with respect to the section of road where the accident occurred and the reasons that the reconstruction project was abandoned, while the Commissioner has peculiar and specific knowledge about that project and the decision-making process pursuant to which it was abandoned. We therefore conclude that plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating that the employees previously produced by the County “did not possess sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts or [were] otherwise inadequate” … . Black v Athale, 2015 NY Slip Op 05355, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

Pilot Assumed the Risk of a Take-Off from a Wet, Grass Field

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff-pilot’s complaint should have been dismissed because the pilot, injured attempting to take off from a grass field, assumed the risk associated with a take-off from a wet field.  The airport is a designated venue for the recreational activity of private aviation.  Therefore the recreational use of the airport was a qualifying activity under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. The pilot was aware of the wet conditions prior to his attempt to take off:

We agree with defendant that its airport is a designated venue for the recreational activity of private aviation and that plaintiff’s use thereof was in furtherance of his pursuit of that activity … . We thus conclude, as defendant contends, that plaintiff’s recreational use of defendant’s airport was a qualifying activity under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk … . Primary assumption of the risk applies when a consenting participant in a qualified activity “is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” …  . “[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” … . The primary assumption of the risk doctrine also encompasses risks involving less than optimal conditions… . “It is not necessary to the application of assumption of [the] risk that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … .

Here, the undisputed facts establish that plaintiff, an experienced pilot, was well aware of the risk inherent in taking off from a soft, wet grass runway with the type of landing gear with which his aircraft was equipped. Plaintiff’s awareness of the risk was amply established by his admitted preflight concern about the condition of the grass runway, and by his personal inspection thereof generated in part by his encounter with wet and muddy conditions while towing his aircraft to the runway by motor vehicle. Bouck v Skaneateles Aerodrome, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05300, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

Defendant Sky-Diving Instructor’s Duty of Care (Re: Training) Did Not Extend to the Unforeseeable Conduct Which Resulted In the Plane Crash

Plaintiff was injured in a plane crash which occurred as the pilot was attempting to pull a skydiver back into the plane.  The hatch door opened unexpectedly on take-off and a skydiver, against the pilot’s instructions, stood up and attempted to pull the door closed. Plaintiff had completed a one-hour skydiving course offered by defendant prior to the flight.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant breached his duty to provide proper training for the pilot, instructors and other skydivers. The court determined defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff with respect to the unforeseeable conduct which occurred on the plane:

“The existence and scope of a duty of care is a question of law for the courts entailing the consideration of relevant policy factors” … . In making such a determination, “the courts look to whether the relationship of the parties is such as to give rise to a duty of care . . . , whether the plaintiff was within the zone of foreseeable harm . . . and whether the accident was within the reasonably foreseeable risks” … . “[T]he law draws a line between remote possibilities and those that are reasonably foreseeable because [n]o person can be expected to guard against harm from events which are . . . so unlikely to occur that the risk . . . would commonly be disregarded’ ” … .

We conclude that defendant established as a matter of law that the plane crash at issue was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of defendant’s alleged failure to provide adequate training. Although the risk may now readily be perceived with the benefit of hindsight, we conclude that the plane crash due to the hatch door opening and the response of the pro-rated skydiver was not “within the class of foreseeable hazards” associated with defendant’s alleged failure to provide proper training … . We thus conclude that defendant had “no cognizable legal duty to protect [plaintiff] against the injury-producing occurrence” …. . Tiede v Frontier Skydivers, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05311, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Patient’s Suicide Was Not a Foreseeable Consequence of Doctor’s Alleged Failure to Properly Diagnose and Treat Patient’s Abdominal Pain

The Third Department affirmed summary judgment granted to defendant doctor (Skezas).  Plaintiff alleged the doctor failed to properly diagnose and/or treat plaintiff’s decedent’s abdominal pain. Decedent was told by the doctor he may have cancer, which, if not treated, could be fatal within 6 to 12 months. The doctor set up an appointment for plaintiff’s decedent with a specialist.  Before seeing the specialist, plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide. The Third Department determined plaintiff’s decedent’s suicide was not a foreseeable consequence of the actions ascribed to the doctor:

“An intervening act will be deemed a superseding cause and will serve to relieve [a] defendant of liability when the act is of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuates [the] defendant’s negligence from the ultimate injury that responsibility for the injury may not be reasonably attributed to the defendant” … . Applying this rule to a person’s intentional act of taking his or her own life, negligent conduct can only support liability for another person’s suicide under certain circumstances and where suicide is a foreseeable consequence of such conduct … . Here, Skezas did not practice psychiatry, decedent was not confined to Skezas’ care and Skezas did not advise decedent to commit suicide. The possibility that decedent would choose to take his own life in the absence of any actual terminal cancer diagnosis and rather than taking advantage of the second medical opinion — regarding a diagnosis and/or pain management — from the specialist that Skezas had secured for decedent is not a foreseeable consequence of the alleged negligent acts … . Stein v Kendal At Ithaca, 2015 NY Slip Op 05246, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

, ,

Negligence and Proximate Cause Inextricably Interwoven—Verdict Finding that Defendant Was Negligent but Such Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Injury Properly Set Aside as Against the Weight of the Evidence

The plaintiff-student was sexually assaulted at school.  The jury found the school was negligent in its supervision of its students, but that the negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury.  The Second Department determined the verdict was properly set aside as against the weight of the evidence.  The issues of negligence and proximate cause were inextricably interwoven, such that finding the negligence was not the proximate cause of injury was against the weight of the evidence:

“A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . ” A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause'” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the issues of negligence and proximate cause were inextricably interwoven, such that the jury’s finding that the defendants were negligent, but that their negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the infant plaintiff’s injuries, was contrary to the weight of the evidence … . Victoria H. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 05156, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

, ,

Causes of Action Against City Alleging Negligence In Responding to a 911 Call and In Preparing for and Responding to a Snow Storm Which Blocked Roads Should Have Been Dismissed—Only Governmental Functions Were Involved and there Was No Special Relationship between the City and Plaintiffs’ Decedent

The Second Department determined the complaint against the city should have been dismissed under the doctrine of governmental immunity.  Plaintiffs alleged the city was negligent in responding to a 911 call for an ambulance and was negligent in preparing for and responding to a snow storm (which blocked roads). Because the relevant acts or omissions related to government functions, and because no special relationship existed between the city and plaintiffs’ decedent, the city was immune from suit. The Second Department provided a good explanation of the relevant law:

As a general rule, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection, fire protection or ambulance services” … . When a negligence cause of action is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality’s conduct is proprietary in nature, the municipality is subject to suit under the ordinary rules of negligence applicable to nongovernmental parties … . If it is determined that a municipality was exercising a governmental function, the municipality may not be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party … . “A special duty’ is a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff,’ and is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity'” … . Insofar as relevant here, to establish a special relationship against a municipality which was exercising a governmental function, a plaintiff must show: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … . * * *

A municipal emergency response system is a classic governmental, rather than proprietary, function … . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the complaint fails to allege any facts tending to show knowledge by the defendants that inaction would lead to harm, or that there was any justifiable reliance on any promise made by the defendants. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state facts from which it could be found that there was a special relationship between the decedent and the defendants and, therefore, the complaint does not state a viable cause of action against the defendants based upon their alleged negligence in responding to the 911 call … .

Furthermore, the Supreme Court improperly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging that the defendants failed to prepare for, and respond to, the snowstorm. A municipality is obligated to maintain the streets and highways within its jurisdiction in a reasonably safe condition for travel … . A municipality will be deemed to have been engaged in a governmental function when its acts are undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to the general police powers … . Under the circumstances presented here, the defendants’ snow removal operation on the public streets was a traditionally governmental function, rather than a proprietary function … . Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege in their complaint the existence of a special relationship between the decedent and the defendants as to the defendants’ snow removal function … . Cockburn v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05146, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

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