You are here: / Negligence
,

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

 

The Fact that Plaintiff’s Testimony Was the Only Evidence of the Defect Which Caused Her to Fall (a Hole in a Worn Rubber Mat) Did Not Render the Evidence Insufficient to Support the Plaintiff’s Verdict

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion the defendant hospital had constructive notice of a worn rubber mat. The jury could reason that the wearing of the mat, resulting in a hole, occurred over a period of time and should have been noticed by the defendant. The fact that plaintiff’s testimony was the only evidence of the claimed defect did not render the evidence insufficient. The motion to set aside the verdict was properly denied and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence:

Plaintiff testified that as she entered the playground with her five-year-old grandson, her foot became caught in a hole in the rubber mat, and she fell forward, her right elbow striking the ground. Plaintiff described the hole as being caused by “worn out” rubber. * * *

To set aside a jury verdict as unsupported by sufficient evidence, the movant must demonstrate that “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . The standard for setting aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence is “whether the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [movant] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … .

The liability verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence of defendant’s constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its premises and was not against the weight of the evidence … .

Plaintiff’s testimony that she was caused to fall when her foot became ensnared in a “worn out” section of the rubber mat was sufficient to support a finding of liability … . The fact that plaintiff’s testimony provided the lone evidence of the claimed defect is not a basis to conclude that there was insufficient evidence of a hazardous defect to impose liability on the premises owner … .

The dissent’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the inference that the worn out area was visible or apparent by reasonable inspection cannot withstand scrutiny. A “worn out” section by definition occurs over the passage of time. As the trial court noted “the very description of a worn out area pre-supposes a slow process, and can support a jury inference [*3]that the defect should have been discovered.” The jury having reasonably credited plaintiff’s direct observations and testimony over that of the defense witnesses, it is not for us to second-guess the verdict. Cruz v Bronx Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 05601, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether State Exercised Due Diligence In Addressing Recurrent Blowing-Snow Problem on Highway

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined questions of fact had been raised about whether the state had taken adequate measures to address a recurrent “blowing snow” condition in the vicinity of plaintiff’s-decedent’s highway accident. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the “storm in progress” rule should be applied to blowing snow on a roadway. Rather the inquiry is whether the defendant exercised reasonable diligence in maintaining the roadway under the prevailing circumstances. There was evidence that the area in question was the site of several accidents and that installation of a snow fence may have prevented the problem. The state was unable to demonstrate it had undertaken a relevant study and was therefore unable to invoke qualified immunity:

… [I]t is a matter of established law that “[t]he pertinent inquiry is whether [defendant] exercised reasonable diligence in maintaining [the roadway] under the prevailing circumstances” … . Applying this analysis, ongoing adverse conditions do not excuse defendant from its duty to remediate dangerous conditions, but are relevant to the inquiry as to whether it exercised reasonable diligence in doing so … . * * *

Defendant may be held liable in negligence where it “failed to diligently remedy [a] dangerous condition[] once it was provided with actual or constructive notice or [where] it did not correct or warn of a recurrent dangerous condition of which it had notice” … . “Once [defendant] is made aware of a dangerous traffic condition it must undertake reasonable study thereof with an eye toward alleviating the danger” … . * * *

… [A]n issue of fact exists with respect to whether defendant’s actions in seeking to remedy the recurring hazard of windblown snow by relying solely on plowing were reasonable. * * *

… [D]efendant failed to show that it was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. When defendant undertakes a “stud[y] [of] a dangerous condition and determines as part of a reasonable plan of governmental services that certain steps need not be taken, that decision may not form the basis of liability” … . Although defendant contends that its decision not to utilize a snow fence or other measures intended to mitigate the hazard of windblown snow resulted from a “reasoned plan or study,” the record is inadequate to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that such a study was undertaken … . Frechette v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05538, 3rd Dept 6-25-15

 

, , ,

Elements of Negligence, General Business Law 349 and Tortious Interference with Contract Causes of Action Succinctly Described

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court properly dismissed (for failure to state a cause of action) the negligence cause of action, should not have dismissed the General Business Law 349 cause of action, and properly denied the motion to dismiss the tortious interference with contract cause of action. The court succinctly described the elements of the three causes of action (facts not described in the decision):

To prevail on a negligence cause of action, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a legal duty, a breach of that duty, proximate causation, and damages. “Absent a duty of care, there is no breach, and without breach there can be no liability” … . * * *

To state a cause of action under General Business Law § 349, the complaint must allege that ” a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice'” … . * * *

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract are the existence of a valid contract between it and a third party, the defendant’s knowledge of that contract, the defendant’s intentional procurement of the third party’s breach of that contract without justification, and damages … . MVB Collision, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 05453, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Bus Company’s Duty of Care Did Not Include Keeping Steps to the Bus Dry and Free of Snow During a Snow Storm

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the defendant bus company could not be held liable for a slip and fall on wet steps on a bus during a snow storm:

“[A] common carrier is subject to the same duty of care as any other potential tortfeasor—reasonable care under all of the circumstances of the particular case” … . Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it did not breach any duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances that existed at the time of the accident … . Given the inclement weather conditions when the accident occurred, “it would be unreasonable to expect the [defendant] to constantly clean the steps of the subject bus” … . Batista v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 05430, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–No Notice of Wet Condition Where Plaintiff Fell

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the defendant was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The defendant demonstrated it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition (wet floor). An affidavit by a member of the maintenance crew stated that the area where plaintiff fell had been inspected 10 to 15 minutes before the fall and there had been no complaints about a wet condition. The court explained the relevant law:

The owner or possessor of property has a duty to maintain his or her property “in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . 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 plaintiff’s fall … . “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” … .

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition alleged by the plaintiff to have caused the accident. In support of its motion, the defendant relied upon, among other things, the affidavit of Charles Barber, a member of the maintenance crew at the subject store on the date of the accident. Barber averred that he had inspected the area where the plaintiff alleged that she fell approximately 10 to 15 minutes prior to the accident and observed no water in the area at that time. He further averred in his affidavit that at no point prior to the accident did he ever receive any complaints of any kind concerning the area where the plaintiff allegedly fell. Mehta v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05450, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

, ,

Notice of Claim Timely Served by an Unauthorized Method Deemed Valid/Motion to Renew Based Upon Information Known at the Time of the Original Motion Properly Heard in Exercise of Discretion

The First Department determined the savings provision of General Municipal Law 50-e applied and a notice of claim which was timely served by an unauthorized method was valid.  The court noted that a motion court can exercise its discretion to hear a motion to renew which relies on information known but not raised at the time the original motion was made:

Although the motion was based on information that was available to plaintiff earlier, “courts have discretion to consider such evidence in the interest of justice” … .

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s notice of claim was not served within the 90-day period set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e, and plaintiff had not timely moved for an extension of time to serve. Plaintiff contended that she qualified under either or both prongs of the “savings provision” under General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c), which provides that “[i]f the notice is served within the period specified by this section, but in a manner not in compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, the service shall be valid if the public corporation against which the claim is made demands that the claimant. . .be examined in regard to it, or if the notice is actually received by a proper person within the time specified by this section, and the public corporation fails to return the notice, specifying the defect in the manner of service, within thirty days after the notice is received.”

Moreover, “[t]he purpose of a notice of claim is to allow the municipal defendant to make a prompt investigation of the facts and preserve the relevant evidence. The applicable statute should be applies flexibly so as to balance two countervailing interests: on the hand, protecting municipal defendants from stale or frivolous claims, and on the other hand, ensuring that a meritorious case is not dismissed for a ministerial error. General Municipal Law § 50-e was not meant as a sword to cut down honest claims, but merely as a shield to protect municipalities against spurious ones” … .

Here, the record shows that plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendant on December 8, 2011 via regular mail, which did not comply with the requirement that service be completed in person or via registered or certified mail. However, defendant subsequently demanded that plaintiff appear for examinations pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h with regard to her claim. Under such circumstances, plaintiff’s service of the notice of claim is valid under the first prong of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c). Person v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 05417, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

 

,

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

 

, ,

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

 

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