You are here: / Negligence
,

Electricity-Supplier (Con Edison) Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to a Shareholder in an Apartment Cooperative Who Fell in a Common Area During a Power Outage/Plaintiff’s Lack of Knowledge of the Cause of His Fall Was Fatal to the Lawsuit

The Second Department determined the electricity-supplier, Con Edison, did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff, a shareholder in an apartment cooperative, who fell in a common area of the building during a power outage. In addition, the plaintiff’s lack of knowledge re: the cause of his fall was fatal to the lawsuit:

The Court of Appeals has held that an electricity-supplying utility “is not answerable to the tenant of an apartment building injured in a common area as a result of [the utility’s] negligent failure to provide electric service as required by its agreement with the building owner” (Strauss v Belle Realty Co., 65 NY2d 399, 405; see Milliken & Co. v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 469). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the injured plaintiff’s status as a shareholder in the cooperative corporation that owned the building did not make him a party to the contract with Con Edison, such that Con Edison owed him a duty of care… . * * *

“[A] plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action, because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation” … . Here, the injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not know why he fell, did not know whether he tripped or slipped, and had no memory of the fall. When he was asked if he knew why he fell, the injured plaintiff testified: “That’s speculation. I don’t know.” In addition, the building defendants submitted the deposition testimony of two witnesses who stated that the injured plaintiff appeared to be intoxicated at the time of the accident. Thus, the building defendants demonstrated that it was just as likely that the accident was caused by some factor other than poor lighting conditions in the stairwell, such as a misstep, a loss of balance, or intoxication, and thus “any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer conjecture” … . O’Connor v Metro Mgt. Dev., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05921, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Criteria for Negligent Care of a Child by a Nonparent Explained—Effect on Proof Requirements of Amnesia Suffered by the Injured Party Noted

In concluding summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper, the Second Department explained the criteria for negligent care of a child by a nonparent and noted the effect of amnesia suffered by the injured party on the plaintiff’s proof requirements:

“A person, other than a parent, who undertakes to control, care for, or supervise an infant, is required to use reasonable care to protect the infant over whom he or she has assumed temporary custody or control. Such a person may be liable for any injury sustained by the infant which was proximately caused by his or her negligence. While a person caring for entrusted children is not cast in the role of an insurer, such an individual is obliged to provide adequate supervision and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately resulting from the negligent failure to do so” … . Here, in support of her motion for summary judgment, the defendant Joanne Williams submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that under the circumstances, she adequately supervised the infant plaintiff … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the plaintiffs contend that the infant plaintiff suffered from amnesia as a result of the subject accident and, thus, they are not held to as high of a degree of proof …, the plaintiffs are not relieved of the obligation to provide some proof from which negligence can reasonably be inferred … . Alotta v Diaz, 2015 NY Slip Op 05899, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Circumstantial Evidence Raised Question of Fact About Whether Respondents Were Responsible for the Placement of an Object Which Fell and Injured Plaintiff

The Second Department determined summary judgment in favor of the respondents should not have been granted.  Plaintiffs had raised a question of fact by producing circumstantial evidence that the respondents, not New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) employees, were responsible for the placement of a “shoe paddle” in a subway car which fell and injured plaintiff. The court explained the criteria for circumstantial evidence in this context:

“To establish a prima facie case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence, [i]t is enough that [the plaintiff] shows facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred'” … . “The law does not require that plaintiff’s proof positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident but defendant’s negligence” … . “Rather, [the plaintiff’s] proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote’ or technical’ to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … . “A plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely or more reasonable that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence than by some other agency” … .

Here, the respondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering the testimony of two of their employees denying that they placed the shoe paddle in the subject door. In opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the testimony from NYCTA employees, including the testimony of the cleaner of the subject train, that no NYCTA employee placed the shoe paddle in the door, and that the respondents were the only contractors present at the site during the relevant time period. The plaintiffs also submitted NYCTA records showing that as of 11:40 p.m., about three hours prior to the incident, all shoe paddles were in their holders and all doors were free and moving properly. Thus, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether this circumstantial evidence gives rise to a rational inference that it was more likely or more reasonable that an employee of the respondents placed the shoe paddle in the subject door than an NYCTA employee … . Hernandez v Alstom Transp., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05911, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Absence of a Safety Device Which Would Reduce the Functionality of a Table Saw is Not a Design Defect–Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted as a matter of law to the manufacturer of a table saw. Plaintiff alleged the absence of an interlock device which would not allow the saw to operate without a protective guard in place was a design defect.  However, it is settled that such an interlock device on a table saw renders the saw unusable for some cuts and, therefore, the absence of the device is not a design defect:

The definition of a design defect, for purposes of imposing products liability, is that “if the design defect were known at the time of manufacture, a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner” … . “This standard demands an inquiry into such factors as (1) the product’s utility to the public as a whole, (2) its utility to the individual user, (3) the likelihood that the product will cause injury, (4) the availability of a safer design, (5) the possibility of designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but remains functional and reasonably priced, (6) the degree of awareness of the product’s potential danger that can reasonablely be attributed to the injured user, and (7) the manufacturer’s ability to spread the cost of any safety-related design changes” … . Liability attaches when an analysis of these factors leads one to conclude that “the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing” it … .

An interlock on a table saw, which would prevent the operation of the table saw without the guard in place, could make the table saw unusable for certain cuts, thereby impairing its functionality … . Therefore, a theory of liability based upon an allegation that a table saw should have been designed with an interlock has been “explicitly rejected as a matter of law” … . Chavez v Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05903, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Questions of Fact About Defendant’s Actual or Constructive Notice of Liquid on Floor—Question of Fact Whether Contract Food Service Launched and Instrument of Harm Such that the Food Service Contract Gave Rise to Tort Liability to Plaintiff

The First Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendants in a slip and fall case. The complaint alleged that there was liquid on the floor of a women’s homeless shelter operated by defendant Camba.  The complaint further alleged that plaintiff frequently observed liquid on the floor after defendant food service, Whitson’s, delivered prepared food. Plaintiff also alleged she had complained about the condition to Camba’s maintenance staff. The First Department found the affidavit of Camba’s employee did not demonstrate the absence of actual or constructive notice (no evidence of the cleaning schedule was presented).  The First Department also found there was a question of fact whether Whitson’s launched an instrument of harm, which would support tort liability for plaintiff’s fall arising from Whitson’s food service contract with Camba:

Camba failed to make a prima facie showing that it lacked constructive notice of the liquid on the floor. Although Camba’s employee testified that she completed her inspection of the building about an hour before the accident, and that it was her usual custom and practice to pass by the area where plaintiff claims she fell, she could not recall whether she inspected the accident location itself that afternoon when she made her rounds … . Her affidavit stating that she did not observe a slippery substance or liquid on the hallway floor during her daily rounds did not satisfy Camba’s burden of showing it had no actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition alleged and that it did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit Camba employees to discover and remedy it … . Camba also failed to present evidence regarding the shelter’s cleaning schedule, and Camba’s employee lacked personal knowledge regarding the shelter’s maintenance … .

Even if Camba had met its initial burden, the record shows that there exists a question of fact as to whether it had notice of a recurring condition. Plaintiff’s testimony that she frequently would see liquid leaking from Whitson’s Food’s delivery crates at the accident location, and that she complained to Camba’s maintenance staff about the liquid, is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to a recurring condition … .

Whitson’s Food, which had a contract with Camba to provide cooked meals for the shelter, failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm by dropping liquid on the floor when it delivered food to the shelter on the day of the accident … . The deposition testimony from an employee of Whitson’s Food was insufficient to show that Whitson’s Food did not cause or create the liquid condition, since he lacked personal knowledge as to whether the floor was clean after Whitson’s Food delivered the food … . Jackson v Whitson’s Food Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05889, 1st Dept 7-7-15

 

, ,

Individual Condominium Owners Are Not Responsible for Conditions in the Common Elements of the Condominium, Which Are Under the Control of the Board of Managers—In a Case Stemming from a Slip and Fall in a Vestibule (a Common Element) the Individual Owners’ Motions for Summary Judgment Were Properly Granted

Plaintiff slipped and fell in a vestibule, one of the common elements of a condominium.  The common elements of a condominium are under the control of the board of managers, not the individual condominium owners.  Therefore the condominium owners’ motions for summary judgment were properly granted:

As a general rule, liability for a dangerous or defective condition on real property must be predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property … . “[C]ondominium common elements are solely under the control of the board of managers” … . Here, the defendants, moving separately, each established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that as individual unit owners of the condominium, they had no duty to maintain the vestibule where the accident occurred, as it was one of the condominium’s common elements … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to, inter alia, whether the defendants created the alleged wet condition that caused the plaintiff to slip and fall … . O’Toole v Vollmer, 2015 NY Slip Op 05655, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Out-of-Possession Landlord Relinquished Control of the Premises to the Extent that Its Duty to Maintain the Premises in a Reasonably Safe Condition Was Extinguished—Lease Allowed Landlord to Reenter to Inspect and Make Repairs and Improvements

The Second Department determined there were questions of fact whether an out-of-possession landlord (Marphil Realty) was liable for a dangerous condition (resulting in a fire). The lease gave the landlord the right to reenter during usual business hours in order to inspect the premises and to make repairs and improvements. Therefore there was a question of fact whether the landlord had relinquished complete control over the property such that its duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition was extinguished:

“Generally, a landowner owes a duty of care to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition” … . “That duty is premised on the landowner’s exercise of control over the property, as the person in possession and control of property is best able to identify and prevent any harm to others'” … . Accordingly, “a landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property” … . However, an out-of-possession landlord may be liable for injuries occurring on the premises if “it has retained control of the premises, is contractually obligated to perform maintenance and repairs, or is obligated by statute to perform such maintenance and repairs” … . Yehia v Marphil Realty Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05670, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

,

Company Which Contracted with County to Maintain Traffic Signals Did Not Owe a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff Alleged a Malfunctioning Traffic Signal Caused an Accident in Which She Was Injured

Plaintiff alleged a traffic accident was the result of a malfunctioning traffic signal.  The defendant county had entered a traffic-signal maintenance contract with defendant Welsbach.  The Second Department determined that the contract between the county and Welsbach did not give rise to tort liability re: defendant Welsbach in favor of the plaintiff because the contract was not such that it displaced the county’s duty to maintain the traffic signal. The court explained the analytical criteria:

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . Exceptions to this general rule exist “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties[;] and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . Welsbach established, prima facie, that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care, since its limited maintenance contract with the County did not displace the County’s duty to maintain the traffic signal at the subject intersection in a reasonably safe condition and it did not launch an instrument of harm … . Watt v County of Nassau, 2015 NY Slip Op 05668, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

, ,

Property Was Not Transferred Until Escrow Conditions Were Met—Appellant Did Not Own the Building Where Plaintiff Slipped and Fell Because the Escrow Conditions Were Not Met and the Deed Was Not Released from Escrow Until the Day After the Slip and Fall

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined appellant did not own the property on the day plaintiff slipped and fell. The “preclosing” on the sale of the property to appellant took place on the day of the accident. But the deed was held in escrow until the escrow conditions were met on the day following the accident. Therefore the property was not transferred to the appellant until the day after the accident:

“When a deed is delivered to be held in escrow, the actual transfer of the property does not occur until the condition of the escrow is satisfied and the deed is subsequently delivered to the grantee by the escrow agent”… . Here, the appellant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that the actual transfer of the property to the appellant did not occur until the conditions of the escrow were satisfied and the deed was thereafter released by the escrow agent on [the day after the accident]. As a result, the appellant demonstrated that it did not own or otherwise control the subject property on the date of the plaintiff’s alleged accident … . Camac v 550 Realty Hgts., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05631, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

“Conclusory” Allegation Rear-End Collision Was Caused by the Sudden Stop of the Lead Vehicle Is Not Enough to Defeat Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motion

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined plaintiffs, who were struck from the rear in a vehicle collision, were entitled to summary judgment. A “conclusory” allegation by the defendant that plaintiffs’ vehicle caused the accident by stopping suddenly was not enough to defeat the motion.  The court explained the relevant law:

“When the driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his vehicle, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” … .

“A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision”‘ … .

A nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision may include evidence of a sudden stop of the lead vehicle … . However, “vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead”… . Moreover, “[a] conclusory assertion by the operator of the following vehicle that the sudden stop of the vehicle caused the accident is insufficient, in and of itself, to provide a nonnegligent explanation” … . Brothers v Bartling, 2015 NY Slip Op 05630, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

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