You are here: / Negligence
, ,

Catheter, Although Deliberately Inserted During Surgery for Temporary Monitoring Purposes, Was a “Foreign Object” Within the Meaning of CPLR 214-a—Action Brought Within One Year of the Discovery of the Catheter (22 Years after Insertion) Was Timely

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Read, determined a catheter left in plaintiff’s heart after surgery in 1986 (when plaintiff was three years old) was a “foreign object.”  Therefore the statute of limitations did not start to run until the presence of the catheter was “discovered” in 2008.  Plaintiff’s complaint, brought within one year of discovery, was therefore timely.  The issue was whether the catheter could be considered a “fixation device” because it was intentionally inserted. If so, the one-year-from-discovery “foreign object” statute of limitations (see CPLR 214-a) would not have applied and the complaint would have been untimely. The Court of Appeals held that the catheter (which was to temporarily monitor heart function after surgery) was not a “fixation device” because, although it was intentionally inserted, it was not inserted to serve a “postsurgery healing function” and it was to be removed a few days after insertion. Thus the catheter was different in kind from a “fixation device,” such as a “stent” or a “suture,” deliberately inserted to serve a “healing function:”

Here, the catheter inserted in the left atrium of plaintiff’s heart performed no securing or supporting role during or after surgery. As explained by plaintiff’s expert, and uncontroverted by defendants, the catheters functioned like a sentinel, allowing medical personnel to monitor atrial pressure so that they might take corrective measures as required; the catheters were, in the words of plaintiff’s expert, “a conduit for information from [plaintiff’s] cardiovascular system.” Because the catheters under the facts of this case are therefore not fixation devices (or chemical compounds or prosthetic aids or devices), they are not categorically excluded from the foreign object exception in CPLR 214-a.

The question then becomes whether the catheters are analogous to tangible items like … clamps … or other surgical paraphernalia (e.g., scalpels, sponges, drains) likewise introduced into a patient’s body solely to carry out or facilitate a surgical procedure. We conclude that they are … .  Walton v Strong Mem. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04786, CtApp 6-10-15

 

,

Conflicting Interests Prevented Attorney from Representing Both the Driver and Passenger in a Stopped Car Which Was Rear-Ended

The Second Department determined, once a counterclaim was made against the driver of the car which was stopped and rear-ended, a conflict of interest arose prohibiting an attorney from representing both the driver and the passenger (Earl):

The general rule is that an attorney is not entitled to a fee in a personal injury action if the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct (12 NYCRR 1200.0) by representing both the driver of an automobile involved in a collision and a passenger in that vehicle … provides, in pertinent part, with respect to conflicts of interests involving current clients, that a lawyer shall not represent a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that “the representation will involve the lawyer in representing differing interests” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.7[a][1]) . Pursuant to rule 1.7(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) the potential conflict may be waived if the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client, the representation is not prohibited by law, the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against the other in the same litigation, and each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. In the instant case, there was no written confirmation of informed consent to the potential conflict.

[The attorney] contends that since Earl was a passenger in a stopped vehicle which was struck in the rear, the driver of the stopped vehicle was clearly not at fault, and there was no conflict of interest … . However, once the defendant asserted a counterclaim, the pecuniary interests of the driver conflicted with those of the passenger… . Shelby v Blakes, 2015 NY Slip Op 04839, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Management Agreement Did Not Give Rise to Tort Liability for Slip and Fall

In determining the management agreement with a hospital did not give rise to tort liability for a slip and fall on the hospital premises, the Second Department explained the relevant law:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are three exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm or creates or exacerbates a hazardous condition; (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 … . “As part of its prima facie showing, a contracting defendant is only required to negate the applicability of those Espinal exceptions that were expressly pleaded by the plaintiff or expressly set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars” … .

Here, the plaintiffs alleged that Sodexo [the building manager] maintained and controlled the premises. Sodexo established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence establishing that the plaintiffs were not parties to the management agreement and thus, it owed the injured plaintiff no duty of care …; that the management agreement was not so comprehensive and exclusive as to displace the Hospital’s duty to maintain the premises safely …; and that it did not create the allegedly hazardous condition … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Sperling v Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04840, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether a building manager (Milford) who hired a window washing service (Red Cap) could be liable for injury to a pedestrian (plaintiff) struck by a piece of window-washing equipment which fell. Although Red Cap was an independent contractor, plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether Milford owed a nondelegable duty to plaintiff because the work it hired Red Cap to do was inherently dangerous (in the absence of warning signs and pedestrian barriers) and whether the building management services contract between Milford and the building-owner (S & P) was sufficiently comprehensive and exclusive to create a duty running to plaintiff. The court noted that the property owners were not liable because ownership and control of the building (on the property) had been transferred (to the building-owner):

Milford established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that Red Cap was an independent contractor and, thus, it could not be held liable for Red Cap’s negligent acts …, and that, as S & P’s contractual managing agent, it owed no duty to the plaintiff … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether Milford owed a nondelegable duty to the plaintiff because it knew or had reason to know that the work it hired Red Cap to perform was inherently dangerous to pedestrians in the absence of warning signs or barriers on the sidewalk below the window-washing apparatus …, and whether the property management services agreement with S & P was sufficiently comprehensive and exclusive so as support a duty running to the plaintiff … . Baek v Red Cap Servs., Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 04794, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Presumption Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent (Vehicle & Traffic Law 388) Was Not Overcome by Testimony of Vehicle Owner and Her Daughter—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Awarded on that Ground

The Second Department noted, in the context of a summary judgment motion, the testimony of the vehicle owner, Varela, and her daughter, an interested witness, was not sufficient to rebut the presumption that another was driving the vehicle with Verela’s consent (Vehicle and Traffic Law 388):

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of Varela’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. “Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s express or implied permission” … . ” The uncontradicted testimony of a vehicle owner that the vehicle was operated without his or her permission, does not, by itself, overcome the presumption of permissive use'” … . The question of consent is ordinarily one for the jury … . Blassberger v Varela, 2015 NY Slip Op 04796, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

, ,

County Was Not Responsible for the Day to Day Operation of Community College and Did Not Own the Dormitory Where Plaintiff’s Decedent Suffered Cardiac Arrest and Died—County Owed No Duty of Care to Plaintiff’s Decedent

Plaintiff’s decedent died of cardiac arrest in a Sullivan County Community College (SCCC) dormitory.  Plaintiff sued the county, alleging the dormitory should have been equipped with a defibrillator and/or should have had an emergency medical response plan in effect.  The Court of Appeals determined the complaint against the county was properly dismissed.  Although the county was the “sponsor” of the community college, it did not own the dormitory and did not manage the day-to-day operation of the community college, which was handled by the board of trustees (Education Law 6306):

While the County exercises significant influence and control over SCCC’s finances, only the College’s board of trustees is authorized to manage SCCC’s facilities; therefore, it alone is charged with the duty of care … . And here, the County additionally established that it did not even own the dormitory where decedent’s accident occurred … . Branch v County of Sullivan, 2015 NY Slip Op 04756, CtApp 6-9-15

 

,

There Is No Cause of Action for “Negligent Handling” of a Dog in New York

The Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision addressing two dog-related personal injury cases, with two concurring opinions, and over three dissenting opinions, kept New York law as it was with respect to the available causes of action for injuries caused by dogs. Negligence theories are not available, and a strict liability theory requires proof the dog-owners were aware of the dog’s propensity to cause injury. In one case (Doerr v Goldsmith) the dog was called by one of its owners and ran across a bike path where plaintiff, a bicyclist, struck the dog and was injured.  In the other case (Dobinski v Lockhart), dogs were let out of the owners’ house and ran into the road where plaintiff-bicyclist struck one of the dogs and was injured. The court kept the existing distinction between domestic pets and farm animals.  The owner of a farm animal which wanders off the farm and causes injury may be liable for negligently allowing the farm animal to escape.  The same theory of owner-negligence was not extended to domestic animals (dogs here). The dog owners who allowed their dog to run across a bike path in response to a command could not be held liable for negligence in handling the dog.  And the dog owners whose dogs ran into the road after being let outside could not be liable for negligently handling the dogs and could not held strictly liable in the absence of proof they were aware of the dogs’ relevant propensity:

Under the circumstances of these cases and in light of the arguments advanced by the parties, Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]) constrains us to reject plaintiffs’ negligence causes of action against defendants arising from injuries caused by defendants’ dogs … . We decline to overrule our recently reaffirmed precedent (see Bloomer, 21 NY3d at 918; Petrone, 12 NY3d at 547-555). Furthermore, our holding in Hastings v Sauve (21 NY3d 122 [2013]) does not allow plaintiffs to recover based on defendants’ purported negligence in the handling of their dogs, which were not domestic farm animals subject to an owner’s duty to prevent such animals from wandering unsupervised off the farm (see Hastings, 21 NY3d at 124-126).

[In Dobinski v Lockhart] the Appellate Division properly granted summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiff’s strict liability cause of action. Defendants carried their initial burden on summary judgment of establishing that they did not know of any vicious propensities on the part of their dogs. In response, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had notice of the animals’ harmful proclivities, and consequently, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s strict liability claim … . Doerr v Goldsmith, 2015 NY Slip Op 04752, CtApp 6-9-15

 

, , ,

Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Deemed Timely (Sua Sponte, Nunc Pro Tunc)—the 90 Days Started Running When Plaintiff’s Asthma Symptoms Worsened, Not When a Doctor Connected the Symptoms to Mold in the Apartment—the Plaintiff Did Not Make a Motion for Permission to File a Late Notice of Claim

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte (in the absence of a motion by the plaintiff), deemed plaintiff’s late notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc. The claim alleged mold resulting from a leak in plaintiff’s New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) apartment exacerbated plaintiff’s asthma.  The First Department found that the cause of action accrued when plaintiff’s symptoms worsened, no later than February, 2011, not when a connection between the mold and plaintiff’s symptoms was suggested by a doctor in March 2011:

[Plaintiff] was required to file a notice of claim within 90 days after “the date of [her] discovery of the injury” or the date on which “through the exercise of reasonable diligence the injury should have been discovered” (CPLR 214-c[3]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e[1][a]…). NYCHA established that plaintiff’s claim accrued no later than February 2011, by relying on plaintiff’s testimony that her asthma symptoms worsened, resulting in more frequent attacks and hospital visits, starting in September or December of 2010, or January or February of 2011, when she was prescribed additional medications, as reflected in her hospital records. Thus, the notice of claim, filed over 90 days later in June 2011, without leave of court, was late and without effect … .

Plaintiff argues that her claim did not accrue until March 2011, when a doctor noted a connection between her symptoms and the mold in her apartment. However, a “cause of action for damages resulting from exposure to toxic substances accrues when the plaintiff begins to suffer the manifestations and symptoms of his or her physical condition, i.e.[,] when the injury is apparent, not when the specific cause of the injury is identified” … .

The court lacked authority to deem the late notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc, since plaintiff never moved for such relief and the statutory time limitation for bringing the claim had already expired when NYCHA moved for summary judgment … . Vincent v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 04767, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

,

The Town’s Actual or Constructive Notice of a Sidewalk Defect Does Not Obviate the Written Notice Requirement

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to the town (re: an allegedly defective sidewalk where plaintiff fell) because the “written notice manually transcribed by the complainant” requirement was not met. The fact that there existed writings and email generated by the town concerning the defect, and the fact that the town may have had constructive or actual notice of the defect, did not obviate the written notice requirement:

“A municipality that has enacted a prior written notice statute may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a defective condition in a sidewalk unless it either has received written notice of the defect or an exception to the written notice requirement applies” … . ” The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality’s affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality’s special use of the property'” … . The affirmative negligence exception is limited to work done by a municipality that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition … . Here, the Town has adopted a prior written notice law stating that written notices must be “manually subscribed by the complainant” and submitted to the Town Superintendent of Highways or the Town Clerk (Code of the Town of North Hempstead § 26-1). Wolin v Town of N. Hempstead, 2015 NY Slip Op 04846,, 2nd Dept 6-9-15

 

,

Dismantling, Salvaging or Demolishing a Product Is Not a Foreseeable Use of the Product

The First Department determined the dismantling, salvaging and demolishing of valves containing asbestos did not constitute a foreseeable use of the valves.  The complaint against the manufacturer of the valves, sounding in strict products liability and negligence, was dismissed.

“A manufacturer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury which results to another when the product is used for its intended purpose or for an unintended but reasonably foreseeable purpose” (Lugo v LJN Toys, 75 NY2d 850, 852 1990] [citations omitted]; see also New Holland at 53-54). The issue, which has not been squarely addressed by the courts of this State, is whether dismantling constitutes a reasonably foreseeable use of a product.  * * *

“To recover for injuries caused by a defective product, the defect must have been a substantial factor in causing the injury, and the product must have been used for the purpose and in the manner normally intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable'” … . As plaintiff did not use [defendant’s] manufactured product in a reasonably foreseeable manner and his salvage work was not an intended use of the product, the complaint should have been dismissed. Hockler v William Powell Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 04765, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

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