You are here: / Negligence

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

 

Sole Proximate Cause of Plaintiffs’ Injuries Should Have Been Determined as a Matter of Law—Complaint Against Non-Negligent Driver (Whose Car Was Pushed into the Pedestrian-Plaintiffs by the Negligent-Driver’s Car) Should Have Been Dismissed

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department found that the proximate cause of the accident should have been determined as a matter of law and the complaint against the non-negligent driver should have been dismissed.  The negligent driver violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by attempting to make a left turn and crossing the lane in which the non-negligent driver was travelling.  The non-negligent driver ‘s car collided with negligent driver’s car and then struck plaintiffs (pedestrians).  Here it was clear that the negligent-driver’s actions were the sole proximate of the plaintiffs’ injury as a matter of law:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . “There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” …, and “[g]enerally, 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” … . Velez v Mandato, 2015 NY Slip Op 05174, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Question of Fact About Sequence of Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the middle driver in a three-car rear-end collision was negligent. Although the middle-car driver alleged she was struck from behind and pushed into the lead car, the third-car driver alleged the middle car struck the lead car before he struck the middle car:

Supreme Court erred in granting the motions of the plaintiff [lead car driver] and [the middle-car driver] for summary judgment. Based on the plaintiff’s account of the accident, those movants established, prima facie, their freedom from comparative fault and that [third-car driver] was negligent based on the presumption of negligence that arises from a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle … . However, [third-car driver’s] affidavit, which recited that his vehicle only struck the [middle] vehicle after the [middle] vehicle had already collided with the lead vehicle, raised triable issues of fact as to the sequence of the collisions, whether [the middle-car driver] was at fault, and the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries …. . Gavrilova v Stark, 2015 NY Slip Op 05153, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

, ,

Indemnification Clause in Lease/Alteration Agreements Unenforceable—No Exception for Lessor’s Negligence

The Second Department determined an indemnification clause in lease/alteration agreements was unenforceable because it was not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions and because it did not make exceptions for the lessor’s negligence (General Obligations Law 5-321):

Broad indemnification provisions … which are not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions, and which fail to make exceptions for the lessor’s own negligence, are unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321 where [the relevant agreements] were not negotiated at arm’s length by two sophisticated business entities… . Nolasco v Soho Plaza Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05164, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Liability for a Defective or Dangerous Condition on Real Property Must Be Predicated Upon Ownership, Occupancy, Control, or Special Use of the Property—Here Defendant Demonstrated None of Those Factors Applied

The Second Department, finding that defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly granted, noted that in order for a defendant to be liable for a dangerous or defective condition on real property the liability must be predicated “upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property …”.  Here no such factors were demonstrated (defendant denied the allegation that it acted as the property manager).  Reynolds v Avon Grove Props., 2015 NY Slip Op 05169, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

,

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to a Psychological Test Should Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Placed Her Mental Condition In Issue and Did Not Demonstrate the Test Was Invasive or Harmful

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to submit to the administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) should have been granted.  Plaintiff amended the bill of particulars to allege she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (stemming from the underlying car accident). Plaintiff placed her mental condition in issue, and there was no showing the MMPI-2 would be invasive or harmful:

Where the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the party may be required to submit to a medical examination … . However, a plaintiff who places his or her physical or mental condition in controversy will not be required to undergo an examination or objective testing procedure which is invasive, painful, or presents the possibility of danger to life or health … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff’s mental condition was put into controversy by her service of the bill of particulars denominated a second supplemental bill of particulars, in which she alleged that she has post-traumatic stress disorder that was caused by the accident. In support of their motion, the defendants established, through the affidavit of a psychologist, that the MMPI-2 is a conventionally accepted noninvasive test utilized for the assessment of a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to establish that subjecting herself to the MMPI-2 would be invasive or harmful to her health … . Peculic v Sawicki, 2015 NY Slip Op 05168, 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