You are here: / Negligence
, ,

New York City Street-Sweeping Vehicles Are Now Exempt from the Rules of the Road Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) (Subject to the “Reckless Disregard” as Opposed to the “Ordinary Negligence” Standard) But Were Not So Exempt in 2010 When this Accident Occurred

The First Department, over a dissent, determined street-sweeping vehicles, at the time of the accident in 2010,  were not “hazard vehicles” exempted from the rules of the road under Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) (apparently, under the Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation, street-sweeping vehicles are now so exempt:)

…Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b), which exempts “hazard vehicles” from the rules of the road and limits the liability of their owners and operators to reckless disregard for the safety of others …, does not apply to the New York City street-sweeping vehicle involved in the collision with plaintiff’s vehicle that gave rise to this action. Therefore, defendants are subject to the ordinary negligence standard of liability, not the reckless disregard standard on which their motion was based. At the time of the accident, in 2010, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) was superseded by Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 4-02, which excepted street sweepers, among others, from compliance with traffic rules to the limited extent of making such turns and proceeding in such directions as were necessary to perform their operations (34 RCNY 4-02[d][1][iii][A]). While subparagraph (iv) contained a broader exception, expressly invoking Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103, we find that subparagraph (iv) did not include street sweepers because that would have rendered subparagraph (iii) redundant and meaningless. Indeed, when 34 RCNY 4-02 was amended, in 2013, the City Council explained in its “Statement of Basis and Purpose” that the effect of the adopted rule would be “that operators of DOT and New York City Department of Sanitation snow plows, sand/salt spreaders and sweepers will now be subject to the general exemption set forth in subparagraph (iv) of that same subsection” (emphasis added) — a strong indication that they were not so subject before then. Deleon v New York City Sanitation Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 02221, 1st Dept 4-1-14

 

Resident Hosts of a Party Had No Duty to Supervise 18-Year-Old Plaintiff Who Became Voluntarily Intoxicated

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scudder, over a partial dissent, the Fourth Department addressed many issues (not all mentioned here) stemming from plaintiff’s fall from a bathroom window at a psuedo-fraternity house where the “resident defendants” rented rooms and were responsible for cleaning the bathrooms.  The Fourth Department determined the resident defendants had a duty to maintain the property in a safe condition and to give warning of unsafe conditions that are not open and obvious. There was a question of fact whether the window, which was only 13 inches above the floor and had no screen or fall-prevention device, was a dangerous condition. There was a question of fact whether the hazard was open and obvious. There was a question of fact whether the resident defendants had actual or constructive notice of the hazard.  The court, however, agreed with the defendants that the cause of action based upon an alleged duty to supervise the 18-year-old plaintiff should have been dismissed:

Hosts of parties where alcohol is consumed in a home that they either own or occupy risk exposure to liability under two separate and distinct theories of negligence. One theory is based on their duties as owners or occupiers of the premises “to control the conduct of third persons for the protection of others on the premises” …, and the other theory is based on the duty of adults to “provide[] adequate supervision for minor guests who bec[ome] intoxicated at their home” … . * * *

The issue in this case, insofar as it relates to the negligent supervision claim, is whether the resident defendants had a duty to the adult plaintiff to supervise him and to protect him from injuring himself as a result of his voluntary intoxication. Any duty of the resident defendants to protect the intoxicated plaintiff from himself would come from the fact that they hosted the party, i.e., they provided the alcohol. Otherwise, plaintiff could sue anyone attending the party for failing to supervise him. …The Court of Appeals ….noted that the courts of New York had rejected “any argument that a duty exists to protect a consumer of alcohol from the results of his or her own voluntary conduct” … . We thus conclude that, because plaintiff was not a minor entrusted to the care of the resident defendants, the resident defendants did not have a duty to protect plaintiff from the results of his own voluntary intoxication.  Parslow … v Leake…, 1341, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Favor of Defendant Who Had the Right of Way When Plaintiff Pulled Into Defendant’s Path from a Stop, Even Though there Was Evidence Defendant Was Travelling Slightly Over the Speed Limit/No Evidence Accident Would Have Been Avoided Had the Defendant Been Traveling at the Speed Limit

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that summary judgment was properly granted to defendant truck driver who struck plaintiff’s vehicle as it entered the roadway from a stop.  The truck driver had the right of way (there was no stop sign for the truck driver) and there was evidence the truck was travelling in excess of five miles an hour over the speed limit. The court determined there was no evidence the accident could have been avoided even if the truck had been traveling at the speed limit:

“It is well settled that a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that drivers of other vehicles will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield” (…see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]). Nevertheless, “a driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection . . . but, rather, is bound to use such care to avoid [a] collision as an ordinarily prudent [motorist] would have used under the circumstances” … .

Here, we conclude … that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that defendant was operating his vehicle “ ‘in a lawful and prudent manner and that there was nothing [he] could have done to avoid the collision’ ” … . Defendant testified that he saw plaintiff’s vehicle at the stop sign, braked as soon as he entered the intersection, and turned to the left “microseconds” after he braked. Despite defendant’s efforts to avoid the accident, his truck struck the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle on the passenger’s side. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, “the fact that [defendant] may have been driving at a speed in excess of five miles per hour over the posted speed limit . . . is inconsequential inasmuch as there is no indication that [defendant] could have avoided the accident even if [he] had been traveling at or below the posted speed limit” … . Heltz v Barratt…, 184, 4th Dept 3-28-14

Similar (but not identical) facts, same result, over a dissent, in Johnson v Time Warner…, 175, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

, , ,

Corporate Officer Not Liable in Lead Paint Exposure Case Under “Commission of a Tort” Doctrine for Nonfeasance/No Evidence of Malfeasance or Misfeasance

The Fourt Department determined summary judgment should have been granted to a corporate officer in a lead paint exposure case. The court explained when the “commission of a tort” doctrine applies to corporate officers:

“The ‘commission of a tort’ doctrine permits personal liability to be imposed on a corporate officer for misfeasance or malfeasance, i.e., an affirmative tortious act; personal liability cannot be imposed on a corporate officer for nonfeasance, i.e., a failure to act” … . Such misfeasance may include exacerbating a hazardous lead paint condition by negligently attempting to correct it … . Here, defendant met his initial burden by presenting “evidence that, if uncontroverted, would have established that [he] did not personally participate in malfeasance or misfeasance constituting an affirmative tortious act” … . Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in response, inasmuch as he submitted no evidence that defendant affirmatively created the dangerous lead condition at the property or did anything to make it worse; at most, defendant merely failed to remedy the condition. We thus conclude that he cannot be held individually liable to plaintiff in this action. Lloyd v Moore…, 200, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

, ,

Cannot Sue Vehicle Owner as Vicariously Liable Under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388 Where Driver is Immunized from Suit Under Workers’ Compensation Law 29 (6)

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals determined that “a defendant may [not] pursue a third-party contribution claim under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law [section] 388 against the owner of a vehicle, where the vehicle driver's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries, but the driver is protected from suit by the exclusive remedy provision of New York Workers' Compensation Law [section] 29 (6)…”.  Here the driver, who was determined to be negligent (90%), was using her husband's car to drive a co-worker to a business meeting. The co-worker was injured and his exclusive remedy against the driver was under the Workers' Compensation Law.  The co-worker sued the driver of the other car, who was also determined to be negligent (10%).  The owner of that car (the driver's husband) then sued the owner of the car in which the co-worker was riding (the employee-driver's husband) under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388 for contribution and indemnification:

In sum, we hold that a defendant may not pursue a third-party contribution claim under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 against a vehicle owner where the driver's negligence was a cause of the plaintiff's injuries, but the driver is insulated from a lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).  Isabella…Hallock… v Koubek, 45, CtApp 3-27-14

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether Out of Possession Landlord, Based on the Terms of the Lease, Had a Duty to Keep the Premises Safe (Labor Law 200)

The Second Department determined the provisions of a lease raised a question of fact about whether an out-of-possession landlord had a duty to keep the premises safe:

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide workers with a safe place to work” … .  * * * …[T]o the extent that the plaintiff’s claims were based on a dangerous condition on the premises, specifically the structural design, construction, and condition of a portion of the floor, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “An out-of-possession landlord generally will not be responsible for injuries occurring on its premises unless the landlord has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … . Here, the lease submitted by the defendants in support of their motion provided, among other things, that the defendants were required to “repair the damaged structural parts of the Premises,” that they were “not required to repair or replace any equipment, fixtures, furnishings or decorations unless originally installed by Landlord,” and that they retained the “right to enter into and upon said premises, or any part thereof . . . for the purpose of . . . making such repairs or alterations therein as may be necessary for the safety and preservation thereof.” Based on these provisions, under the circumstances of this case, the defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not have a duty imposed by contract to remedy the specific dangerous or defective condition alleged here. Thus, to prevail on their motion, the defendants were required to establish that they neither created the alleged dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the dangerous or defective condition alleged by the plaintiff to have contributed to his fall.  Quituizaca v Tucchiarone, 2014 NY Slip Op 02024, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

Basketball Player Assumed Risk of Running Into Glass Doors Behind Baseline

The Second Department determined a basketball player assumed the risk of the injuries suffered when his arm went through a glass door located behind the baseline.  The glass door constituted an open and obvious condition:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk provides that “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . This encompasses risks associated with the construction of the playing field, and any open and obvious conditions on it … . If the risks are known by or perfectly obvious to the participant, he or she has consented to them and the property owner has discharged its duty of care by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be.

Here, based in part on the proximity of the court to the entrance doors, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff had assumed the obvious and inherent risk of coming into contact with the pane of glass in the entrance door by electing to play basketball on that court… .  Perez v New York City Dept of Educ, 2014 NY Slip Op 02022, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

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

 

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