You are here: / Negligence

Skiers Do Not Assume the Risk of Recklessness on the Part of Another Skier

The Fourth Department determined the doctrine of assumption of the risk did not rule out a novice skier’s lawsuit against a skier who ran into her. There was a question whether defendant’s conduct was reckless:

It is well established that, “by engaging in a sport orrecreational 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” … . “While awareness or appreciation of such risks must be ‘assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff’ . . . , ‘[t]he risk of injury caused by another skier is an inherent risk of downhill skiing’ ” … . Nevertheless, “a sporting participant ‘will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct’ ” … . “ ‘Generally, the issue of assumption of [the] risk is a question of fact for the jury’ ”… . Moore… v Hoffman, 138, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

Evidence Sufficient to Demonstrate No Constructive Notice of Ice on Step

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined defendants had demonstrated they did not have constructive notice of ice alleged to be on a step. The proof submitted by the defendants included evidence that the step was routinely inspected every morning, although no evidence of such an inspection on the morning in question was submitted:

The facilities supervisor testified that he routinely inspects the bank’s steps and sidewalk upon his arrival at the bank between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. He or his employees salt or shovel “first thing” in the morning, if the conditions require such action. In addition to inspecting the property upon their arrival, facilities personnel regularly monitor conditions throughout the day and “re-salt or re-shovel” as needed, and do so more frequently during inclement weather or if a customer complains. Defendants did not receive any complaints about snow, ice, or any other dangerous condition on the step prior to the accident. After the accident, which occurred at approximately 12:15 p.m., the facilities supervisor did not salt the steps or direct an employee to do so because he saw nothing to salt. Defendants also submitted the deposition testimony of their regional manager, who testified that there was no ice on the step when he arrived at the bank between 8 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on the morning of the accident and that, after the accident, he inspected the step and the surrounding area and did not observe any snow or ice. A bank security officer testified that he photographed the step approximately two hours after the accident, at which time there was no snow or ice on the step. The security officer testified that he was “perplex[ed]” when he viewed the accident scene because he observed “nothing . . . to slip or fall on.” The postaccident photographs of the step depict what appears to be salt residue, but no ice. Austin v CDGA National Bank Trust and Canandaigua National Corporation…, 1298, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

,

Fall from Subway Platform Not the Result of Negligent Crowd Control

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and dismissed a lawsuit stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s fall from a subway platform to the tracks below. The court explained the negligence criteria with respect to the crowd on a subway platform:

“A subway company is not negligent merely because it permits crowds to gather on its platform. Before proof of negligence in this regard may be said to exist, it must be shown that the crowd was so large and unmanaged that a user of the platform was restricted in his free movements or was unable to find a safe standing place, and that as a result of either of those conditions an injury was sustained” … .Here, there is no evidence that the crowd on the subway platform was so large and unmanaged that it restricted the decedent’s freedom of movement to the extent necessary to impose liability on the Transit Authority. The evidence in the record was insufficient to make out a prima facie case of negligence against the Transit Authority and, in effect, was insufficient to establish that any negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries… . Garcia v New York Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 00961, 2nd Dept 2-13-14

 

, , , ,

Eugenics Argument Should Be Rejected in a Lead-Paint Poisoning Case/Notice Criteria Explained

In a lead-paint poisoning case, the Fourth Department determined that the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to preclude the defendant from “claiming socioeconomic, genetic, eugenic or euthenics alternative and/or negating cause[s]” was not appealable. But Justice Fahey made it clear in a concurring opinion that the eugenics argument should be rejected.  In addition the Fourth Department explained the notice criteria in lead-paint cases:

We note at the outset that the appeal from the order insofar as it denied that part of the motion seeking to “preclud[e] defendants’ attorneys and hired experts from claiming socioeconomic, genetic, eugenic or euthenics alternative and/or negating cause[s]” must be dismissed.  “ ‘[A]n evidentiary ruling, even when made in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission’ ”… .

[Justice Fahey, in a concurring opinion, wrote:] … I am troubled by the concept that an individual’s family history may be relevant to establishing a baseline for the purpose of measuring cognitive disability or delay.  I acknowledge that an explanation for cognitive problems may arise from one’s personal history, but as a conceptual and general matter I cannot agree with the principle of the eugenics defense that defendants propose here.  To my mind, the family of a plaintiff in a lead paint case does not put its medical history and conditions at issue, and the attempt to establish biological characteristics as a defense to diminished intelligence, i.e., a eugenics argument, cannot be countenanced and is something I categorically reject.

[With respect to notice, the Fourth Department explained:] .  “It is well settled that in order for a landlord to be held liable for injuries resulting from a defective condition upon the premises, the plaintiff must establish that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected” … .  Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that there is an issue of fact whether defendants had notice of the dangerous lead paint condition in the subject apartment “for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected” …  With respect to constructive notice, we note that the Court of Appeals in Chapman v Silber (97 NY2d 9, 15) wrote that constructive notice of a hazardous, lead-based paint condition may be established by proof “that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before leadbased interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment.” Heyward v Shanne, 1358, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Snow Removal Contractor Created Hazardous Condition by Inadequate Salting

In a slip and fall case, the First Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant, who contracted to provide snow and ice removal, had created or exacerbated a hazardous ice condition by not adequately salting the ice:

…[T]he record presents a triable issue of fact as to whether Waldorf owed plaintiff a duty of care by having “launched a force or instrument of harm” in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its snow and ice removal duties … . The evidence, including photographs and videos taken at the scene of the accident showing the icy condition and deposition testimony that there was no sand or salt in the area where plaintiff fell, raises questions as to whether Waldorf had adequately salted the … pathway, and therefore, whether it created or exacerbated the hazardous ice condition… . Jenkins v Related Cos LP, 2014 NY Slip Op 00727, 1st Dept 2-6-14

 

In the Absence of a Defect, Inherently Smooth Floors Do Not Give Rise to Liability

In a slip and fall case, the First Department noted that inherently smooth floors do not give rise to liability in the absence of a defect.  The plaintiff slipped and fell on a cotton bath mat on a smooth bathroom floor:

In cases involving inherently smooth, and thus potentially slippery tiled or stone floors, absent competent evidence of a defect in the surface or some deviation from an applicable industry standard, no liability is imposed … . The same standard applies to allegedly defective bath mats … .

The motion court properly found that defendants made a prima facie showing that the accident was not attributable to a defect in the floor or the bath mat, and that they were therefore entitled to summary judgment. Kalish v HEI Hospitality LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00729, 1st Dept 2-6-14

 

,

Accident Occurred Within 15-Day Grace Period Allowed for Repair of Road Defects/City Could Not Be Held Liable

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and held that the 15-day grace period allowed for the repair of an identified roadway defect precluded plaintiff’s lawsuit:

Eight days before plaintiff’s accident, a City highway inspector employed by the Department of Transportation prepared a Highway Inspection and Quality Assurance Report identifying a two-inch-deep defect in the street at the location of the accident, and issued a Corrective Action Request for repairs. These documents constitute a “written acknowledgement from the city of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition,” i.e., one of the three alternative prerequisites to bringing an action against the City for personal injuries caused by a defect in the public street (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c][2]…). However, the same provision of the Administrative Code also provides the City with a 15-day grace period within which to repair or otherwise render safe the defective condition (§ 7-201[c][2]). Since the “written acknowledgement” was received by the City only eight days before the accident, this action may not be maintained against the City. Berrios v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 00733, 1st Dept 2-6-14

 

, ,

Malpractice by Chiropractor Governed by Three-Year Statute of Limitations

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, the First Department determined that a malpractice action against a chiropractor (Dr. Fitzgerald) is governed by the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214(6)), not the 2 ½ year statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a) governing actions against physicians and those providing medical services at the direction of a physician:

Here, plaintiff was not referred to Dr. Fitzgerald by a licensed physician and Dr. Fitzgerald’s chiropractic treatment was not an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment to a patient or substantially related to any medical treatment provided by a physician. Indeed, plaintiff did not even inform her physicians, including her primary care physician, that she was receiving chiropractic treatment for her neck and back. Further, the record establishes that the treatment provided by Fitzgerald, consisting of adjusting or applying force to different parts of the spine, massages, heat compression, and manipulation of plaintiff’s neck, constituted chiropractic treatment (see Education Law § 6551). The fact that defendant provided treatment to the human body to address a physical condition or pain, which may be within the broad statutory definition of practicing medicine (Education Law § 6521), does not, by itself, render the treatment “medical” within the meaning of CPLR 214-a, since the use of such a broad definition would result in the inclusion of many “alternative and nontraditional approaches to diagnosing [and] treating . . . human disease'” which are clearly nonmedical in nature … .

…Here, there is no doubt that Dr. Fitzgerald’s treatment was separate and apart from any other treatment provided by a licensed physician and was not performed at a physician’s request. Accordingly, as with the psychologist in Karasek [92 NY2d 171], and the optometrist in Boothe [107 AD2d 730], defendant is not entitled to invoke the benefit of the shortened limitations period applicable to medical, dental and podiatric malpractice, and is subject to the three-year statute of limitations of CPLR 214(6). Perez v Fitzgerald, 2014 NY Slip Op 00744, 1st Dept 2-6-14

 

,

Subcontractor Which Does Not Supervise or Control Injured Worker May Be Liable Under Common Law Negligence Where It Creates an Unreasonable Risk of Harm

In the course of a decision which discussed several Labor Law issues, the Second Department noted when a subcontractor (here MCN) may be held liable under common law negligence, even where the subcontractor has no authority to supervise or control the injured party’s work:

A subcontractor may be held liable for negligence where the work it performed created the condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury, even if it did not possess any authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work or work area … . In response to MCN’s prima facie showing with respect to this cause of action, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether MCN’s employee created an unreasonable risk of harm that was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries… . Van Nostrand v Race & Rally Constr Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 00651, 2nd Dept 2-5-14

 

,

Vehicle Owner’s Uncontradicted Deposition Testimony Not Enough to Overcome Presumption Vehicle Driven with Owner’s Consent

The Second Department determined that the defendant vehicle owner (Witsell) did not overcome the presumption her vehicle was being driven with her consent:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) “makes every owner of a vehicle liable for injuries resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle . . . by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner’”… .. Under this statute, there is a presumption that the operator of a vehicle operates it with the owner’s permission … . The presumption may be rebutted by substantial evidence that the owner did not give the operator consent …

Here, Witsell failed to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. … “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” … . Since Witsell failed to meet her initial burden as the movant, the burden never shifted to the party opposing the motion to raise a triable issue of fact… . Ellis v Witsell, 2014 NY Slip Op 00630, 2nd Dept 2-5-14

 

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