You are here: / Negligence

Parked Garbage Truck Furnished Condition for the Accident, But Was Not Proximate Cause of the Accident

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed because the accident was caused by plaintiff’s failure to see what he should have seen.  Plaintiff’s vehicle struck a garbage truck which was stopped partially in the roadway:

Although the issue of proximate cause is generally one for the jury …, liability may not be imposed upon a party who “merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event” but was not one of its causes … . Here, the defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidentiary proof that [defendant’s] conduct in stopping his truck partially in the roadway merely furnished the condition for the accident, but was not a proximate cause thereof… . Lee v D Daniels Contr Ltd, 2014 NY Slip Op 00487, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause/Defendants Did Not Establish Freedom from Comparative Fault

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court should not have dismissed causes of action against a restaurant and a valet parking service.  Plaintiff’s decedent was struck and killed as she attempted to cross the street when defendant driver passed cars double-parked in front of the restaurant:

” There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident'” … . Thus, ” the proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law'” … . The issue of comparative negligence is generally one for the trier of fact … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, [the restaurant] and the [parking service] defendants each failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. On this record, even assuming, arguendo, that the actions of [the driver] and the decedent were negligent and were proximate causes of the accident, the evidence submitted by [the restaurant] and the [parking service] defendants, in support of their motion and cross motion, respectively, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether those defendants were free from comparative fault….  Spadaro v Parking Sys Plus, Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 00494, 1st Dept 1-29-14

 

Question of Fact About Negligent Supervision at Skating Rink

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether injury incurred at defendant’s skating rink was the result of defendant’s negligent supervision:

Those charged with supervising a skating rink cannot be held liable for an injury if the act precipitating the injury was so sudden that no amount of supervision could have averted the accident … . Thus, where reckless behavior that is over and above the usual dangers inherent in the activity of skating is claimed to have caused the injury, the issue of whether the proprietor was negligent in supervising the skaters turns on whether the proprietor had sufficient notice of the allegedly reckless conduct so as to permit it to prevent the injury through the exercise of adequate supervision … . The duration and nature of the allegedly reckless conduct are factors that bear on this issue… .  Fader v Town of Oyster Bay, 2014 NY Slip Op 00324, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

In a Slip and Fall Case, the Flawed Constructive-Notice Jury Instruction Required Reversal of the Verdict (Plaintiff Had Won) and a New Trial on Liability

The First Department, over a dissent, reversed the verdict in plaintiff’s favor in a slip and fall case because of a flawed jury instruction and ordered a new trial on liability.  Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on ice on a subway platform.  The First Department determined that the jury instruction on constructive notice was so flawed that a new trial was necessary:

Over objection and despite defendant’s request for the correct instruction, the trial court instructed the jury that it had to find that “defendant either knew about the dangerous conditions or circumstances and that would be actual notice or a reasonable person would conclude that such a condition existed, and that would be called constructive notice.” This instruction does not make it clear that in order to find constructive notice, the jury must conclude that the condition was visible and apparent, and that it existed for a sufficient length of time for defendant to have discovered it and taken curative action (see PJI 2:90; 2:11 A…).  Harrison v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 00277, 1st Dept 1-16-14

 

No Constructive Notice of Icy Condition/Allegation Defendant Created the Condition Based on Speculation

The First Department, over a dissent, affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a thin sheet of ice in a plaza in front of defendant’s building.  Defendant demonstrated that the area had been inspected an hour before the accident and no ice was visible.  Plaintiff acknowledged she could not see the ice.  Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant created the dangerous condition by running a fountain which was the source of a wind-borne spray of water on the plaza was deemed too speculative:

The evidence submitted by defendant, including security logs, establishes that defendant’s employees routinely inspected the area where plaintiff fell, had conducted an inspection one hour prior to her accident, and did not observe any ice. In opposition and in support of her cross motion, plaintiff failed to provide evidence showing that the ice was discernable.

On appeal, plaintiff does not dispute defendant’s lack of actual notice of ice on the plaza, having conceded, at her examination before trial, that it was not visible. She testified that although conditions at about 9:30 a.m. were bright and clear, it “looked like a thin layer of ice that wasn’t noticeable enough for me to see it before I fell.” Thus, the record establishes that the hazardous condition was not “visible and apparent” so as to enable defendant’s employees to discover it and take remedial measures… . Tompa v 767 Fifth Partners LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00276, 1st Dept 1-16-14

 

Failure to Accurately Identify Where Slip and Fall Occurred in Notice of Claim Warranted Dismissal of Complaint

The First Department, over a dissent, determined a slip and fall complaint should have been dismissed because the notice of claim did not accurately identify the place where the fall occurred:

Under these circumstances, Supreme Court should have granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In addition to giving a vague description in his notice of claim that did not describe the location of the alleged defect with sufficient particularity …, plaintiff gave contradictory versions of the accident location, which further rendered the notice of claim defective, since it served to obscure the correct location. Plaintiff did not advise defendant of the revised location until more than three years after the alleged accident, which prejudiced defendant’s ability to conduct a meaningful and timely investigation of the claim… . Robles v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 00181, 1st Dept 1-14-14

 

, ,

Medical Corporation Not Responsible for Unauthorized Disclosure of Medical Information by Employee Acting Outside the Scope of Employment

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals answered a certified question from the Second Circuit in the negative.  The question was: “Whether, under New York law, the common law right of action for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality for the unauthorized disclosure of medical information may run directly against medical corporations, even when the employee responsible for the breach is not a physician and acts outside the scope of her employment?”:

… [A] medical corporation's duty of safekeeping a patient's confidential medical information is limited to those risks that are reasonably foreseeable and to actions within the scope of employment.  Doe v Guthrie Clinic Ltd, 224, CtApp 1-9-14

 

, ,

Dismissal of Slip and Fall Case at Summary Judgment Stage Was Premature Where Relevant Evidence Is Entirely Within the Control of the Defendants

The Third Department determined summary judgment granted to the village and county in a slip and fall case should have been denied.  Plaintiff tripped on patched pavement on an approach to a bridge.  There was a question of fact whether the county or the village was responsible for repairs in that area.  Because the information regarding the repairs was totally beyond the control of the plaintiff, dismissal at the summary judgment stage was premature:

…[P]laintiffs have not produced any direct evidence that either the County or the Village performed the patching that plaintiffs’ expert says caused plaintiff’s injury.  Notably, however, neither defendant produced written policies, repair logs, inspection reports or other documentation – other than the survey – to support their respective claims; both deny that any pertinent records exist and rely exclusively upon the testimony of their officials.  The pertinent facts are entirely outside plaintiffs’ knowledge and within the exclusive knowledge of the parties moving for summary judgment – a circumstance in which summary judgment is inappropriate … .  In the absence of direct evidence, plaintiffs are forced to rely solely on circumstantial evidence to oppose defendants’ summary judgment motion – that is, the inference that, given the claim of each defendant that the other bears responsibility for maintaining the bridge approach, and the dearth of evidence that any other entity has such responsibility or authority, one of them must have performed the repairs that allegedly caused plaintiff’s accident … .   In these circumstances, “[a]lthough plaintiffs clearly will bear the burden of proof on the issue at trial, they raised sufficient issues of fact in the context of [these] summary judgment motion[s] to warrant having the circumstantial evidence and defendants’ credibility concerning the [creation of the defect] tested by cross-examination and assessed by the trier of fact”… . Guimond v Village of Keeseville, 515869, 516320, 3rd Dept 1-9-13

 

Question of Fact About Negligent Operation of a Ski Lift

The Fourth Department determined plaintiffs had raised a question of fact about whether the operators of a ski lift were negligent in failing to notice plaintiff’s skis were entangled as they approached the point where they were to get off the lift.  Supreme Court had determined the cause of action was prohibited by the assumption of the risk doctrine:

It is beyond debate that there is inherent risk of injury to participants in downhill skiing . . . Moreover, there is undoubtedly some risk of injury inherent in entering, riding and exiting from a chairlift at a ski resort.  However, . . . the latter is not of such magnitude as to eliminate all duty of care and thereby insulate the owner from claims of negligent supervision and training of the lift operator or negligent maintenance and operation of the lift itself since such negligence may unduly enhance the level of the risk assumed” (…see General Obligations Law § 18-101…). …

We conclude … that defendants’ own submissions raised triable issues of fact whether they were negligent in their operation of the chairlift, thereby unduly enhancing the risk to plaintiff … . … Upon reaching the sign directing passengers to prepare to unload, plaintiff noticed that her skis were entangled with her son’s skis.  Defendants did not slow or stop the chairlift, and plaintiff was unable to unload from the chairlift before it passed the unloading area.  Plaintiff was injured when she either jumped or was thrown from the chairlift before it reached the safety gate that would have stopped the chairlift.  Tone v Song Mountain Ski Center…, 1377, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

,

Plaintiff Did Not Raise Question of Fact About Whether Municipality Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect and Was Affirmatively Negligent

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about whether the municipality created a dangerous condition by placing a piece of plywood over a hole in a sidewalk.  There was evidence the municipality had received a work order for the area in question and the area was inspected but no problem was found.  There was no evidence the municipality was responsible for placing the plywood over the hole:

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court properly determined that the City’s prior written notice requirement applies inasmuch as the area where the accident occurred is part of the sidewalk … .  Because the City established in support of its motion that it did not receive prior written notice, the burden shifted to plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of an exception to that requirement … .  We agree with defendants that the court erred in determining that plaintiff met that burden by establishing that such an exception applies, i.e., that the City was affirmatively negligent … .  Although plaintiff submitted a preaccident “work order” to the City for the location in question, she failed to adduce any evidence that the City placed the plywood over the hole in which she fell.  Further, the City established that, in response to the “work order,” it dispatched an employee who testified that he inspected the area in question, found nothing wrong with it, and performed no work. Thus, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact “whether the City created a defective condition within the meaning of the exception” to defeat defendants’ motion … . Pulver v City of Fulton …, 1086, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

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