You are here: / Negligence
,

Plaintiff Did Not Raise an Issue of Fact Re: Vicious Propensities of Defendants’ Dog

The Second Department determined plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about the vicious propensities of a dog which was alleged to have bitten plaintiff:

“To recover upon a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog . . . knew or should have known of such propensities” … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, [the fact that the dog was kept as a guard dog,] and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … .

The defendants separately established their respective prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their respective motions by demonstrating, through their deposition testimony, as well as the plaintiff’s, that they “were not aware, nor should they have been aware, that this dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior” … . Indeed, the defendants testified that they had no knowledge that the dog involved in this alleged attack on the plaintiff had ever growled at, chased, bitten, or attacked anyone prior to the subject incident … .

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Henry v Higgins, 2014 NY Slip Op 03489, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

,

Waiver and Release Signed by Plaintiff When She Rented a Segway Vehicle Precluded Her Personal Injury Action Even Though the Accident Occurred During a Tour Conducted by Defendant’s Employees

The Second Department determined the waiver and release signed by plaintiff when she rented a Segway vehicle precluded  her personal injury action.  Plaintiff was taking a tour in the vehicle which was conducted by defendant’s employees.  The vehicle became stuck in mud causing plaintiff to fall:

“Absent a statute or public policy to the contrary, a contractual provision absolving a party from its own negligence will be enforced” … . Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the waiver and release signed by the plaintiff … . Further, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, General Obligations Law § 5-326 does not invalidate the release because the fee she paid to the defendant was for the rental of the Segway vehicle, and was not an admission fee for the use of the public trail over which the tour was conducted … .  Deutsch v Woodridge Segway LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03475, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

,

City Administrative Code Provision Requiring a Building Owner to Maintain and Be Responsible for the Safe Condition of a Building Is Not Specific Enough to Form the Basis of Negligence Cause of Action

The Second Department determined plaintiffs did not raise a question of fact on a premises liability cause of action based upon alleged city administrative code violations, but did raise a question of fact concerning the building owner’s common law negligence.  Infant plaintiff fell over a railing on a landing to a set of stairs outside of the apartment building:

Administrative Code §§ 27-375 and 27-376 do not apply to the subject exterior stairs because the stairs were not [*2]”used as exits in lieu of interior stairs” (Administrative Code § 27-376…). “Exit” is defined by the Administrative Code as a “means of egress from the interior of a building to an open exterior space” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-232). The stairway was outside the parameters of the building and did not provide a means of egress from the interior of the building to an open exterior space … . Moreover, the plaintiffs’ contention that the stairs violated Administrative Code §§ 27-127 and 27-128 is without merit. Those sections “merely require that the owner of a building maintain and be responsible for its safe condition,” and do not constitute a sufficiently specific statutory predicate for liability … . In addition, Administrative Code § 17-123, which concerns window guards, is inapplicable to the facts of this case. Friedman v 1953 Realty Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 03480, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

Defendants Who Struck Plaintiff’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Pulled Out of a Parking Lot Entitled to Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined summary judgment had been properly granted to the defendants (“Dunn defendants”).  The defendant driver had the right of way and struck plaintiff’s vehicle when plaintiff pulled out of a parking lot.  The court explained the operative principles:

There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident and, thus, on their motion for summary judgment, the Dunn defendants had the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence … . While a driver is required to “see that which through proper use of [his or her] senses [he or she] should have seen” …, a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield to the driver with the right-of-way… .. In addition, “a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … .

Here, the Dunn defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the injured plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way to the Dunn vehicle, which was legally proceeding westbound on Montauk Highway with the right-of-way, and that Danielle Costella Dunn was free from comparative negligence since she had only had seconds to react … . Kenda v Dunn 2014 NY Slip Op 03494, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Snow Removal Efforts Created or Exacerbated Icy Condition

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of the property owner in a slip and fall case.  The plaintiff slipped on ice on metal vault doors in the sidewalk in front of defendants’ restaurant.  The defendants failed to demonstrate that their snow removal efforts did not create or exacerbate the condition:

A property owner that elects to engage in snow removal activities must act with reasonable care so as to avoid creating a hazardous condition or exacerbating a natural hazard created by a storm … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as they failed to establish that the snow removal efforts that were undertaken prior to the accident neither created nor exacerbated the allegedly hazardous icy condition which caused the plaintiff to fall.. . Gwinn v Christina’s Polish Rest Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03485, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

, ,

School District Owed No Duty of Care to Student Struck by Car Before School Bus Stopped to Pick Her Up/Bus Driver Had Missed Student’s Stop, Had Turned Around, and Was Driving Back Toward the Student When She Was Struck

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined that a school district did not owe any duty to a student who was struck by a car before the bus stopped to pick her up.  The bus driver mistakenly drove past the stop where the student was waiting.  The driver turned the bus around.  As the driver was heading back toward the student's stop, the student was struck by a car. The Court of Appeals essentially agreed with the dissenting appellate division justices, whose position was described as follows:

The dissenting Justices would have reversed Supreme Court's order and granted the District's motion in its entirety. …[T]hey observed the “well settled” rule that the District's duty flowed from physical custody and control; that at the time of the accident the District did not have physical custody of the child, who thus remained outside its orbit of authority; and that the District therefore “owed no duty to the child in this situation, and, absent duty, there can be no liability” … .

The dissenting Justices rejected plaintiff's contention, endorsed by the majority, that the District “assumed a duty to the child as a consequence of the potentially hazardous situation allegedly created by the school bus driver in turning the bus around after missing the bus stop” … . Williams v Weatherstone, 2014 NY Slip Op 03425, CtApp 5-13-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Elevator Company Had Constructive Notice of “Misleveling Condition”/Question of Fact About Applicability of Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine

The First Department determined questions of fact had been raised about whether an elevator company, which exclusively maintained and repaired the elevator, had constructive notice of the “misleveling condition.”  In addition there was a question of fact about the applicability of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine:

An elevator company that agrees to maintain an elevator may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found … .

Plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the misleveling condition or with reasonable care could have discovered and corrected the condition, by submitting the affidavit of their expert, who reviewed defendants’ repair tickets and concluded that they revealed conditions related to the elevator’s leveling function. * * *

Issues of fact exist as to whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies here. The expert testimony conflicts as to whether the misleveling of the elevator would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. It is, however, undisputed that defendants were exclusively responsible for maintenance and repair of the elevator, and the record is devoid of any evidence that plaintiff contributed to its misleveling… . McLaughlin v Thyssen Dover El Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 03440, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

,

Police Officer Struck by Plaintiffs’ Decedents When the Officer Was Making a U-Turn to Follow a Car Was Entitled to Summary Judgment Under the Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard

The Fourth Department determined summary judgment should have been granted in favor of a police officer (Bluman) who was struck by plaintiffs' decedents when the officer was attempting to make a u-turn to follow a vehicle.  The court determined the reckless disregard standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 applied and that the officer's “momentary judgment lapse” did not rise to the level of reckless disregard as a matter of law:

At the time of the accident, Bluman was operating an “authorized emergency vehicle” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [a]) and was engaged in an emergency operation by virtue of the fact that he was attempting a U-turn in order to “pursu[e] an actual or suspected violator of the law” (§ 114-b). As the Court of Appeals recognized …, “the reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) only applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b). Any other injury-causing conduct of such a driver is governed by the principles of ordinary negligence.” We conclude that, by attempting to execute a U-turn, Bluman's conduct was exempted from the rules of the road by section 1104 (b) (4). As a result, his conduct is governed by the reckless disregard standard of care in section 1104 (e).

It is well settled that a ” momentary judgment lapse' does not alone rise to the level of recklessness required of the driver of an emergency vehicle in order for liability to attach” (Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 557). Here, Bluman acted under the mistaken belief that the other southbound vehicles were sufficiently behind him and that it was, at that moment, safe to execute a U-turn. This “constituted a momentary lapse in judgment not rising to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others' “… . Dodds v Town of Hamburg, 2014 NY Slip Op 03060, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

,

Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) Applied to the Driver of a Town Truck—The Driver Was Using a Plow to Remove Water and Debris from a Road—Because the Driver Was Acting On His Own and Had Not Been Assigned to Remove the Water and Debris, the Question Raised on Appeal Was Whether the Driver Was Doing “Work” within the Meaning of Section 1103 (b) such that the Statutory Standard, as Opposed to the Ordinary Negligence Standard, Applied

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the statutory “reckless disregard” standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b), not the ordinary negligence standard, applied to the actions of the driver of a town truck..  The driver, Grzybek,  was using a plow to remove water and debris from a service road.  The water sprayed onto the windshield of the truck, obstructing the driver’s vision and causing the driver to cross into an oncoming lane, striking plaintiffs’ vehicle. Because the driver was not assigned the task of removing water and debris from the road, the dissenters argued the driver was not engaged in “work” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) and, therefore, the ordinary negligence standard, not the “reckless disregard” standard of section 1103 (b), applied:

…[T]he statute exempts “all [municipal] vehicles actually engaged in work on a highway’ . . . from the rules of the road” … . The statute does not state that it exempts only those vehicles engaged in “assigned” work. Plowing water and debris from a road is work, and that work is within the scope of Grzybek’s duties. Plaintiffs do not suggest otherwise. Rather, their contention is that the statute applies only when the vehicles are “performing their assigned work” and that Grzybek was not assigned to plow water and debris from the service road on the day of the accident. In our view, interpreting the statute as the dissent and plaintiffs suggest improperly adds language to the statute by qualifying the word “work.” It is not the function of this Court to usurp the power of the legislature and rewrite a clear and unambiguous statute. Aside from statutory exceptions not relevant herein, all municipal vehicles actually engaged in work are exempt from the rules of the road. Inasmuch as Grzybek’s vehicle was actually engaged in work, albeit unassigned work, the reckless disregard standard of care set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies as a matter of law. * * *

…[W]e conclude that plaintiffs, in opposition to defendants’ cross motion, submitted evidence from which a jury could find that Grzybek “had intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk “that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow” and [did] so with conscious indifference to the outcome’ ” … . Gawron v Town of Cheektowaga, 2014 NY Slip Op 03051, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

,

Causes of Action Against County Personnel Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training and Supervision Should Not Have Been Dismissed–Plaintiff’s Decedent Was Killed at the Hands of Her Mother and Half-Brother—Complaint Alleged County’s Negligence in Failing to Protect Plaintiff’s Decedent

In a lawsuit alleging county personnel, including deputy sheriffs, were negligent resulting in the death of plaintiff’s decedent at the hands of her mother and half-brother, the Fourth Department determined: (1) governmental immunity could not be determined at the pleading stage because whether the government’s actions were discretionary (and therefore immune) was a question of fact; (2) absent a local law to the contrary, a sheriff can not be held vicariously responsible for the actions of deputy sheriffs under the doctrine of respondeat superior; (3) the causes of action for negligent hiring, training and supervision of county personnel should not have been dismissed; (4) the notices of claim were sufficient to notify the county of the negligent hiring, training and supervision causes of action; and (5) the notice of claim was not defective for failing to name the sheriff in his official capacity.  Mosey v County of Erie, 2014 NY Slip Op 03041, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

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