You are here: / Negligence

Questions of Fact About Whether Amusement Ride On Sidewalk Created an Inherently Dangerous Condition and Whether the Hazard Was Latent or Open and Obvious

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the placement of an amusement ride on the sidewalk created an inherently dangerous condition.  Plaintiff turned a corner and was injured when he bumped into the machine

[Defendants’] submissions failed to establish that the Mickey Mouse ride had been placed on the sidewalk in such a manner as to comply with the New York City Administrative Code (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-136[a], [j]). Hence, they failed to exclude the possibility that the ride obstructed the sidewalk or otherwise created an inherently dangerous condition. Moreover, “the issue of whether a hazard is latent or open and obvious is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question” …. . “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” … . Here, in view of the alleged circumstances of the plaintiff’s accident, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the condition was open and obvious. Toro v Friedland Props Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 07960, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

, ,

Condominium Owners Stated a Cause of Action Based Upon Third-Party-Beneficiary Status Re: a Contract Between the Village and an Engineer Hired to Inspect the Condominiums/The Contract Cause of Action Precluded the Professional Malpractice Cause of Action

The Second Department determined that a cause of action based upon the theory that condominium owners were third-party beneficiaries of a contract between a village and an engineer hired to inspect the condominiums should not have been dismissed.  It was alleged that the engineer approved the buildings (leading to the issuance of certificates of occupancy by the village) despite defects, including the absence of firewalls. Because a contract-based theory had been properly alleged, the related professional malpractice cause of action, sounding in negligence, should have been dismissed:

In determining third-party beneficiary status it is permissible for the court to look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the agreement . . . Moreover, it is well settled that the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract” … . Here, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from the Village Attorney attesting that the Village engaged the defendant to perform the subject inspections for the benefit of the purchasers of the subject condominiums … . Moreover, “the identity of a third-party beneficiary need not be set forth in the contract or, for that matter, even be known as of the time of its execution” … .

The plaintiffs asserted in the complaint that the defendant “negligently performed inspection services relative to the homes in [Encore I] and [Encore II],” in that, inter alia, the defendant “fail[ed] to detect the existence of defects in the homes and appurtenant common areas.” “[M]erely alleging that a party breached a contract because it failed to act with due care will not transform a strict breach of contract claim into a negligence claim” … . This is because “[o]bligations that flow exclusively from a contract must be enforced as contractual duties under a theory of contract law” … . “[A] court enforcing a contractual obligation will ordinarily impose a contractual duty only on the promisor in favor of the promisee and any intended third-party beneficiaries” … . “Thus where a party is merely seeking to enforce its bargain, a tort claim will not lie'” .. . Taking into account the applicable factors, including “the nature of the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred and the resulting harm” … , it is clear that the plaintiffs, as third-party beneficiaries, are seeking enforcement of the defendant’s promise to properly inspect the construction of the subject homes. Thus, the only claim the plaintiffs have alleged against the defendant is one sounding in contract, and they have failed to state a cause of action sounding in tort. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the second cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Encore Lake Grove Homeowners Assn Inc v Cashin Assoc PC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07932, Second Dept 11-27-13

 

,

Error to Deny Missing Witness Jury Instruction on Ground Such Testimony Would Be Cumulative—Only Testimony of a Party’s Own Witnesses Can Be Deemed Cumulative, Not, as Here, the Testimony of the Opposing Party’s Witnesses

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the trial court erred in refusing to grant the plaintiff’s request for a missing witness jury instruction.  Plaintiff claimed to have been injured in a motor vehicle accident. Questions were raised about whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the accident.  The defense failed to call any of the doctors hired by the defense to examine plaintiff.  The plaintiff’s request for the missing witness charge was denied on the ground the defense-doctors’ testimony would be merely cumulative.  The Court of Appeals ruled that testimony can be deemed cumulative only with respect to a party’s own witnesses, not with respect to witnesses under the opposing party’s control:

The appropriate analysis is found in Leahy v Allen (221 AD2d 88 [3d Dept 1996]), in which the [3rd] Department held that “one person’s testimony properly may be considered cumulative of another’s only when both individuals are testifying in favor of the same party” (id. at 92), noting that to hold “otherwise would lead to an anomalous result.  Indeed, if the testimony of a defense physician who had examined a plaintiff and confirmed the plaintiff’s assertion of a serious injury were deemed to be cumulative to the evidence offered by the plaintiff, thereby precluding the missing witness charge, there would never be an occasion to invoke such charge” (id.).  Accordingly, our holding is that an uncalled witness’s testimony may properly be considered cumulative only when it is cumulative of testimony or other evidence favoring the party controlling the uncalled witness.

In short, a witness’s testimony may not be ruled cumulative simply on the ground that it would be cumulative of the opposing witness’s testimony.  Because the record indicates that the latter was Supreme Court’s rationale in this case, Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s request for a missing witness charge. De Vito v Feliciano, 195, CtApp 11-26-13

 

A Prank Played Upon Defendant Driver by a Passenger Warranted Instructing the Jury on the Emergency Doctrine

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the trial court properly charged the jury on the emergency doctrine.  A jury found that the defendant was not negligent in the operation of her vehicle. A passenger in defendant’s car had pulled the string on her bikini top causing the top to fall off.  The court wrote:

In assessing the propriety of whether to instruct a jury on the emergency doctrine, the trial court must “make the threshold determination that there is some reasonable view of the evidence supporting the occurrence of a qualifying emergency’” … . “Only then is a jury instructed to consider whether a defendant was faced with a sudden and unforeseen emergency not of the actor’s own making and, if so, whether [the] defendant’s response to the situation was that of a reasonably prudent person” … . “The emergency instruction is, therefore, properly charged where the evidence supports a finding that the party requesting the charge was confronted by a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration’” … .

Here, “[v]iewing the evidence in the light most favorably toward giving the requested emergency doctrine instruction to the jury” … , based upon [defendant’s] testimony, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that her conduct was the product of a “ sudden and unexpected circumstance’” … . Contrary to our dissenting colleague’s determination, [defendant’s] general awareness that …a passenger in her vehicle…had engaged in certain distracting conduct while in the car would not preclude a jury from deciding that [defendant] did not anticipate that he would suddenly pull the strings on her bikini top, thereby causing the top to fall and her breasts to be exposed … . It was for the jury to find whether [defendant] was faced with a sudden and unforeseen emergency not of her own making and, if so, whether her response to the situation was that of a reasonably prudent person… .  Pelletier v Lahm, 2013 NY Slip Op 07718, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

Question of Fact Re: Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault Precludes Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Erroneously Granted Summary Judgment to Plaintiff “To the Extent … Defendant Is Liable”

In a personal injury case involving a collision between defendant’s car and plaintiff’s bicycle, the Second Department determined that summary judgment should not have been granted to the plaintiff because there existed a question of fact about plaintiff’s comparative negligence.  Supreme Court had granted summary judgment to the plaintiff “to the extent that the defendant is liable:”

In a personal injury action, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault …, since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … . Thus, the issue of the defendant’s liability, a component of which is the apportionment of fault …, cannot be determined as a matter of law until it is decided whether any culpable conduct on the plaintiff’s part contributed to the happening of the accident. For this reason, the Supreme Court order granting the plaintiff’s motion “to the extent that the defendant is liable,” while directing that the “plaintiff’s comparative negligence, if any, shall be decided by a jury,” was internally inconsistent.  Lanigan v Timmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 07711, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

,

Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against City for Negligent Failure to Provide Emergency Medical Services—No “Special Relationship” Alleged

The Second Department determined a complaint against the City alleging a negligent failure to provide emergency services (resulting in the death of plaintiff’s decedent) should have been dismissed.  The court explained that the criteria for a “special relationship” with the city with respect to responding to a call for medical help had not been met:

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” … . There is, however, a “narrow class of cases in which [the courts] have recognized an exception to this general rule and have upheld tort claims based upon a special relationship’ between the municipality and the claimant” … . Such special relationship imposes a specific duty upon the municipality to act on behalf of the claimant … . As articulated by the Court of Appeals in Cuffy v City of New York, “[t]he elements of this special relationship’ are: (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”… .

Here, the complaint fails to allege any facts tending to show that there was any “direct contact” between the decedent and the defendants or that there was any “justifiable reliance” on any promise made to the decedent by the defendants. Accordingly, the complaint does not state facts from which it could be found that there was a special relationship between the decedent and the defendants necessary to assert a negligence cause of action against the defendants … . In the absence of any allegation of such a relationship, the complaint cannot state a viable cause of action against the City based on its alleged negligence in failing to send an ambulance to the decedent’s home.  Freeman v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 07707, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

,

No Legal Duty Owed Independent of Contract—Negligence Cause of Action Dismissed

In the context of the dismissal of a tort action against Ferguson Electric Service Company after a building fire, the Fourth Department explained when a contractual relationship can give rise to an action in tort:

“It is a well-established principle that a simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated . . . This legal duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract” … .  Plaintiffs cannot maintain their tort cause of action because Ferguson … owed no legal duty that is independent of the contract … .  Moreover, “a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party…”… . Niagara Foods, Inc…v Ferguson Electric Service Company, Inc…, 1044, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

,

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Where Defendant Crossed Into Her Lane Attempting to Make a Left Turn

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff (Daniels) whose car was struck head-on by defendant (Rumsey), whose car crossed into plaintiff’s lane attempting to make a left turn into a parking lot, was entitled to summary judgment, even though plaintiff may have been driving five miles an hour above the speed-limit:

…[W]e conclude that the court properly granted Daniels’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against her.  Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, “[t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left . . . into . . . [a] private road[] or driveway shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.” To meet her initial burden on her motion, Daniels was required “to establish both that [Rumsey’s] vehicle suddenly entered the lane where [Daniels] was operating [her vehicle] in a lawful and prudent manner and that there was nothing [Daniels] could have done to avoid the collision” … .  Daniels met that burden by submitting evidence that the accident occurred after Rumsey turned her vehicle left into Daniels’s path of travel in the southbound curb lane of Delaware Avenue, that Daniels had the right-of-way, and that Daniels was proceeding at a speed of between 30 and 35 miles per hour at the time of the accident, i.e., no more than five miles per hour above the posted speed limit.  Daniels also established that she did not see Rumsey’s vehicle until its grill was in her lane of travel, and that she had only “[f]ractions of a second” to take evasive measures, which proved unsuccessful.  Contrary to Rumsey’s contention, the fact that Daniels may have been driving at a speed in excess of five miles per hour over the posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour is inconsequential inasmuch as there is no indication that she could have avoided the accident even if she had been traveling at a speed at or below the posted speed limit … . Daniels v Rumsey, 1168, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

, ,

Admissibility of Medical Records as Business Records Does Not Preclude Evidentiary Objections to Admission

In the context of a personal injury case, the Fourth Department noted that the failure to object to the admissibility of medical records within 10 days (CPLR 3122-a [c]) did not render the documents automatically admissible:

Defendants contend that the court erred in denying their request at the commencement of trial to admit all of plaintiff’s medical records in evidence pursuant to CPLR 3122-a (c).  According to defendants, the records were automatically admissible because plaintiff raised no objection within 10 days of trial (see id.).  We reject that contention.  Plaintiff’s failure to object within 10 days before the trial waived any objection plaintiff had to the admissibility of the records as business records (see CPLR 3122-a [c]; 4518 [a]), but he did not waive any objection to their admissibility based on other rules of evidence … .  Indeed, plaintiff properly objected at trial on relevancy grounds with respect to the admissibility of some of the records… . Siemucha v Garrison…, 1145, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

,

Contractor May Be Liable to Noncontracting Third Party If Area Made Less Safe by Contractor’s Work

The Fourth Department reinstated a claim for contribution by the owner of a parking lot (Piedmont) against the contractor (Bach) hired to raze structures and fill in all holes.  Plaintiff was injured when his foot fell through a hole into a hidden vault below:

We conclude that Bach met its initial burden on its motion with respect to the claim for contribution by establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing that claim … .  Specifically, Bach established as a matter of law “that the injured plaintiff was not a party to [the] contract . . . and that it thus owed no duty of care to the injured plaintiff” … .  In opposition, however, Piedmont raised triable issues of fact to defeat that part of the motion.  Although plaintiff was a noncontracting third party with respect to the construction contract between Bach and Piedmont, Bach may still be liable if, “in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, [it] ‘launche[d] a force or instrument of harm’ ” … , or otherwise made the area “less safe than before the construction project began” … .  Here, there are issues of fact whether Bach negligently filled in the vault only partially, and concealed its existence, thereby creating a force or instrument of harm or otherwise making the area less safe than before the demolition project began … . Paro v Piedmont Land and Cattle, LLC…, 1189, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

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