You are here: / Negligence

Passengers in Car Struck from Behind Entitled to Summary Judgment Despite Issue of Comparative Fault on the Part of the Driver of the Car in which They Were Passengers

The Second Department determined plaintiffs, who were passengers in a car struck from behind by the defendant (Farrell), were entitled to summary judgment in spite of the possible comparative negligence of the driver of the car in which they were passengers (Moncion):

Both plaintiffs established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the vehicle in which they were passengers was struck in the rear by Farrell’s 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” … . In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showings, Farrell failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision. Although Farrell submitted evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Moncion was comparatively at fault in causing the accident … , that evidence was insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment since Farrell failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether either one of the plaintiffs was at fault in the happening of the accident. Upon establishing his or her freedom from fault, the right of an innocent passenger to an award of summary judgment on the issue of liability against one driver is not barred or restricted by potential issues of comparative fault as between that driver and the driver of another vehicle involved in the accident … . Rodriguez v Farrell, 2014 NY Slip Op 02027, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

, ,

Requirements for a Negligence Action Against a Municipality (Based Upon Personal Injuries Allegedly Caused by the Actions of Police Officers) Explained

The Fourth Department, in affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant municipality in a suit based upon injuries alleged to have been caused by police officers, the court explained the law relevant to negligence suits against municipalities:

With respect to the negligence cause of action, it is well settled that, in an action against a municipality, it is “the fundamental obligation of a plaintiff pursuing a negligence cause of action to prove that the putative defendant owed a duty of care. Under the public duty rule, although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to [perform certain governmental functions], this does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created. This is an offshoot of the general proposition that[,] ‘[t]o sustain liability against a municipality, the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally’ . . . The second principle relevant here relates not to an element of plaintiff[’s] negligence claim but to a defense that [is] potentially available to [defendant]—the governmental function immunity defense . . . [T]he common-law doctrine of governmental immunity continues to shield public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions . . . [pursuant to which] ‘[a] public employee’s discretionary acts—meaning conduct involving the exercise of reasoned judgment—may not result in the municipality’s liability even when the conduct is negligent’ ” … .

With respect to the issue whether a special duty exists, it is well settled “that an agency of government is not liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function unless there existed a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public . . . Such a duty, . . . [i.e.,] a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff[,] is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . “A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” … . According to plaintiff, a special relationship was formed in this case by the second method, i.e., the voluntary assumption of a duty of care by the municipal agency. That method requires plaintiff to establish “(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 … .

We conclude that defendants met their burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that there was no voluntary assumption of a duty of care, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the police officers who came to the house assumed, through promise or action, any duty to act on his behalf. Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with respect to that requirement, we conclude that he also failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the fourth requirement, i.e., whether he justifiably relied on any such assumption of duty by the police officers … . Consequently, we conclude that the court erred in denying the motion with respect to the negligence cause of action.

We further conclude, in any event, that the defense of governmental function immunity constitutes a separate and independent ground for dismissal of the negligence cause of action. That defense “shield[s] public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions” … . Here, defendants established that they were providing police protection and engaging in the investigation of possible criminal behavior. It is well settled that “[p]olice and fire protection are examples of long-recognized, quintessential governmental functions” … . Furthermore, “defendants established that the conduct of the police officers throughout the course of their interaction with [plaintiff] was undertaken in the exercise of reasoned professional judgment of the officers, and was not inconsistent with accepted police practice. Accordingly, such conduct cannot serve as a basis for municipal liability” … . Bower v City of Lockport…, 159, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

,

Knowledge of the Health Issue Underlying Plaintiff’s Claim, and Knowledge of Another Similar Claim, Was Not Enough to Provide Defendant with Notice of Plaintiff’s Claim/Request to File Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Granted

Over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s application to file a late notice of claim.  Plaintiff, a wrestler, had contracted herpes from another high school wrestler.  The school had knowledge of the issue (a Health Advisory) and of another wrestler’s claim against the school based upon the same facts.  The Fourth Department determined that knowledge of the issue and the  other wrestler’s claim was not sufficient to put the school on notice about the plaintiff’s claim:

Where a claimant does not offer a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, a court may grant leave to serve a late notice of claim only if the respondent has actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim, there is no compelling showing of prejudice to the respondent …, and the claim does not “patently lack merit” … . Here, respondents asserted that, until claimant made the instant application, they had no knowledge that he had contracted herpes or otherwise had been injured at the tournament. Although claimant offered no evidence to the contrary, he essentially contended that respondents should have known of his injury because another wrestler had filed a timely notice of claim regarding an identical injury and because respondents had received Health Advisory #279a.

As we have repeatedly stated, actual knowledge of the essential facts of a claim requires “[k]nowledge of the injuries or damages claimed by a [claimant], rather than mere notice of the underlying occurrence” … . Here, claimant’s proof in support of his application establishes, at most, that respondents had constructive knowledge of his claim. In other words, there is nothing in the notice of claim filed by the other wrestler who was infected at the tournament or in Health Advisory #279a that gave respondents actual knowledge that claimant was similarly injured.Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that respondents suffered no prejudice from the delay and that the proposed claim against them does not patently lack merit, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in granting claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Matter of Candino v Starpoint Central School District, 83, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

Bicyclist’s Negligence as a Matter of Law Did Not Warrant Summary Judgment to Defendant (Bus Driver, etc.)/There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause of an Accident

The Second Department determined that the fact that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle the wrong way on a one-way street (negligence as a matter of law)  did not mandate summary judgment for the defendant bus driver (Wright).  There can be more than one proximate cause to an accident and defendant failed to demonstrate it was free from fault:

Although the plaintiff concedes that he was negligent as a matter of law by traveling the wrong way on Adams Street in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1127(a) …, there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and the proponent of a motion for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative fault as a matter of law … .

Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing as a matter of law that Wright was free from any comparative fault in the happening of the accident. There are triable issues of fact as to whether Wright failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of his senses …, failed to exercise due care to avoid the collision (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146[a]…), or was traveling at a reasonable and prudent speed as he approached the intersection in light of the conditions then present … . Espiritu v Shuttle Express Coach Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01707, 2nd Dept 3-1914

 

,

Conclusory and Unsupported Affidavit from Plaintiff’s Expert Did Not Raise a Question of Fact/Standard of Care for Doctors and Mental Health Professionals In the Context of a Patient’s Post-Treatment Suicide Described

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeny, reversed Supreme Court and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the action.  The complaint alleged that plaintiff’s husband’s suicide was the result of negligence on the part of the treating doctors, psychiatrists and other health professionals.  The court noted that in most instances the affidavit from an expert asserting a deviation from the appropriate standard of care will be sufficient to defeat summary judgment.  But here the affidavit from plaintiff’s expert was conclusory and unsupported:

It is well settled that “a doctor is not liable in negligence merely because a treatment, which the doctor as a matter of professional judgment elected to pursue, proves ineffective. . .” … . Liability is imposed “only if the doctor’s treatment decisions do not reflect his or her own best judgment, or fall short of the generally accepted standard of care” … . Although a plaintiff’s expert may have chosen a different course of treatment, “this, without more, represents, at most, a difference of opinion among [medical providers], which is not sufficient to sustain a prima facie case of malpractice'” … . In the context of mental health providers, we have held that “[w]hen a psychiatrist chooses a course of treatment, within a range of medically accepted choices for a patient after a proper examination and evaluation, the doctrine of professional medical judgment will insulate such psychiatrist from liability” … . Where a psychiatrist fails to predict that a …patient will harm his or herself if released, liability will likewise not attach for a mere error in professional judgment … . While it is true that “the line between medical judgment and deviation from good medical practice is not easy to draw” … , the “prediction of the future course of a mental illness is a professional judgment of high responsibility and in some instance it involves a measure of calculated risk. If liability were imposed on the physician or the State each time the prediction of future course of mental disease was wrong, few releases would ever be made and the hope of recovery and rehabilitations of a vast number of patients would be impeded and frustrated” … . However, if a decision to release a patient was less than a professional medical determination, liability may attach … . A decision will not be insulated by the medical judgment rule if it is not based upon a careful examination … .

Generally, ” the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants'” … . To suffice, the expert’s opinion “must demonstrate the requisite nexus between the malpractice allegedly committed’ and the harm suffered” … . However, where “the expert’s ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation . . . the opinion should be given no probative force and is insufficient to withstand summary judgment” … . Park v Kovachevich, 2014 NY Slip Op 01679, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

Licensee Assumed Sufficient Control Over Hired Premises to Create Duty to Maintain Premises in Safe Condition

The Third Department determined the American Cancer Society (ACS), as a licensee, had assumed sufficient control of the premises hired for an event hosted by the ACS to create a duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition.  Plaintiff had tripped over a cable placed by an outfit hired by ACS to provide audio-visual services:

Supreme Court properly concluded that ACS owed plaintiff a duty of care. In the context of premises liability, a party owes a duty to take reasonable measures to protect others from dangerous conditions on the property only where that party owns, occupies or controls the property or makes a special use of it … . No party contends that ACS owned, leased or made special use of the Hall of Springs. However, ACS, as a licensee exercising control, owed a duty to those on the property to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition during the period of its use … . Although “mere sponsorship, absent control, does not render [an entity] legally responsible” for defects on the premises …, ACS’s involvement with the gala exceeded bare sponsorship. ACS entered into a contract with Mazzone Management for use of the Hall of Springs, approved the floor plan for the gala, hired ACES to provide audiovisual services, and hired a band for entertainment, and ACS representatives were present during and oversaw the set up and the event. An ACS representative testified at her deposition that she was present during the set up between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the day prior to the event, that she performed a walk-through of the premises, and that if she had noticed any hazards – including tripping hazards – she would have pointed them out and had them remedied. As the record demonstrates that ACS “conceived of, planned, orchestrated and supervised the [gala],” it had control over the premises during the set up and the event and thereby owed a duty of care to those present to maintain the site in a reasonably safe condition … . Stevenson v Saratoga Performing Arts Center…, 517156, 3rd Dept 3-13-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Driver’s Gesture to Turn Was Proximate Cause of Collision

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact about whether defendant driver’s (Slawiendski’s) gesture indicating a second defendant driver (Shaut) could make a left turn in front of him was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s collision with the turning car:

…[T]he duty of a driver to act reasonably in signaling to another driver that he or she will yield the rightof-way or that the other driver may safely proceed is owed not just to the driver being signaled, but also to other motorists and passengers … . Here, there is evidence that Slawienski acted unreasonably based upon his testimony that he failed to check for traffic in his rear or side view mirrors before signaling to Shaut.  However, a signaling driver is liable only when the gesture is a proximate cause of a subsequent collision – an inquiry that “depends on whether the recipient of the gesture relied on it as an indication that the path was safe and clear” … . Proximate cause is generally a factual issue for a jury to resolve … . Here, Shaut testified that he relied on Slawienski’s signal in deciding to make the turn and would not have done so if not for the gesture; further, Slawienski testified that Shaut did not stop as he crossed into plaintiff’s lane, suggesting that Shaut relied on the gesture to indicate that the lane was clear. However, Shaut testified that he knew that he was separately obliged to check the safety of plaintiff’s lane; he stated that he slowed or stopped his vehicle before entering plaintiff’s lane to look for oncoming traffic, but did not see the motorcycle until after the collision. This evidence neither establishes as a matter of law that Shaut fully relied upon Slawienski’s gesture nor that his decision to proceed into plaintiff’s lane was entirely independent … . Thus, there are factual issues for the jury regarding the degree of Shaut’s reliance on Slawienski’s gesture, whether Shaut independently checked the safety of plaintiff’s lane, and if he did, whether the check was a superseding act severing the causal link between the gesture and the collision… . Nasadoski v Shaut, 516374, 3rd Dept 3-6-14

 

, ,

Failure to Allege that But for the Legal Malpractice the Causes of Action Would Have Succeeded Required Dismissal

The Third Department determined plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case of legal malpractice because there was no allegation the causes of action would have been successful but for the alleged malpractice:

…[D]efendants correctly argue that Supreme Court should have granted their motion to dismiss the legal malpractice claim. It is well established that, “[i]n order to sustain a claim for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession which results in actual damages to a plaintiff, and that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the attorney’s negligence” … . Here, although the complaint is replete with allegations of [the attorney’s] alleged failures to use reasonable and ordinary skill in connection with both of plaintiff’s underlying claims, it contains no allegation that, but for these alleged failures, plaintiff would have been successful on either claim. Therefore, even if we accept the allegations as true and liberally construe the complaint to allege negligent representation by [the attorney] …, the allegations are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of legal malpractice… . Hyman v Schwartz, 516728, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

Height Differential Between Concrete Slabs in Sidewalk “Trivial” As a Matter of Law

The Second Department determined a defect which caused plaintiff to trip was “trivial” as a matter of law. The defect was a difference in height between two concrete slabs in a sidewalk:

A property owner may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip … . In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury” … . “[T]here is no minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … . Photographs which fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable… . Slattery v Sachen N High Sch, 2014 NY Slip Op 01310, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

Defendant Not Entitled to Dismissal of Complaint On Ground that Condition of the Property Was Open and Obvious

The Second Department determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the condition causing plaintiff’s injury was open and obvious. Plaintiff stepped back when fireworks were being set off in defendant’s yard. Plaintiff tripped on blocks forming a border around a tree and was impaled on a wooden stake within the border. The Second Department also determined the defendant was not entitled to dismissal of the negligent supervision cause of action (re: third persons setting off fireworks):

A property owner is charged with the duty of maintaining its premises in a reasonably safe condition … . A property owner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which as a matter of law is not inherently dangerous … . Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property so as to give rise to liability depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . The issue of whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is also fact-specific, and usually a question of fact for a jury to resolve … . Whether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances … . A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted …. .The evidence relied upon by the defendant in support of his motion, which included the photographs attached to his affidavit as well as the parties’ deposition testimony, did not establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the subject condition was open and obvious under the circumstances of this case… . Pelligrino v Trapasso, 2014 NY Slip Op 01304, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

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