You are here: / Negligence
, ,

Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Amend Complaint to Allege City Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect

In a slip and fall case, the plaintiff did not allege the city had notice of the defect and sought to amend the complaint to add the allegation.  The Second Department determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend:

… [T]he Supreme Court erroneously granted that branch of the City’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to plead prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect. Instead, under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s cross motion and permitted him to amend the pleadings and the notice of claim to add an allegation that the City received prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect where, as here, the amendment would not prejudice or surprise the City (see CPLR 3025; General Municipal Law § 50-e[6]…).  Perez v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06553, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

,

Valid Cause of Action Stated in Slip and Fall Suit Against Abutting Property Owner for Obstruction in Sidewalk (Gas Cap Cover)

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and determined the slip and fall complaint stated a cause of action against the owner of property abutting a sidewalk.  In the sidewalk was a gas cap cover, owned by a utility, and concrete on top of the gas cap created raised area which was alleged to have caused plaintiff to fall.  A Long Beach City Ordinance imposed a duty upon abutting landowners to remove obstructions. The defendant relied heavily on cases construing New York City’s sidewalk law, which differed from the more broadly worded Long Beach ordinance:

The Charter imposes broad obligations on abutting landowners with respect to the condition of sidewalks, and also provides for tort liability on those landowners:

“The owner . . . of lands fronting or abutting on any street . . . shall make, maintain and repair the sidewalk . . . adjoining his lands and shall keep such sidewalk . . . free and clear of and from snow, ice and all other obstructions. Such owner . . . shall be liable for any injury or damage by reason of omission, failure or negligence to make, maintain or repair such sidewalk . . . or to remove snow, ice or other obstructions therefrom, or for a violation or nonobservance of the ordinances relating to making, maintaining and repairing sidewalks . . . and the removal of snow, ice and other obstructions from sidewalks” (Charter § 256 …).

The Code of Ordinances of the City of Long Beach defines “sidewalk” as “any portion of a street between the curbline and the adjacent property line, intended for the use of pedestrians, excluding parkways” (Code of Ordinances of the City of Long Beach § 1-2). Here, the gas cap was located entirely within a sidewalk flag and was level with the sidewalk, and therefore apparently was intended to be traversed by pedestrians. Thus, the plaintiff contends, the concrete above the gas cap is covered by Long Beach’s sidewalk law, at least to the extent that it may have been an “obstruction” on the sidewalk. Klau v Belair Bldg LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 06548, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

Triable Issues of Fact in Lawsuit Against Bus Company and Property Owner for Slip and Fall on a Speed Bump

In reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the complaint, the Second Department determined there were triable questions of fact whether plaintiff was negligently allowed to step off a bus onto a speed bump, causing her to fall, and whether the property owner (JQ) allowed a dangerous condition (speed bump) to exist:

The [bus company] defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they fulfilled the duty to alighting passengers to stop at a place where they may safely disembark and leave the area … . Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the driver was aware, or reasonably should have been aware, of the presence of a speed bump in the subject location, whether the speed bump constituted a dangerous condition, and whether the driver should have stopped the bus at the designated stop or another location not adjacent to a speed bump … . There is also a triable issue of fact as to whether the driver failed to see that which should have been seen through the reasonable use of one’s senses and was, therefore, negligent… . The injured plaintiff’s failure to positively state whether sand on the speed bump contributed to her fall was not fatal to her cause of action, because the evidence was sufficient to permit a finding based on logical inferences from the record, and not speculation alone, that the placement of the bus was a proximate cause of the accident, regardless of whether there was sand on the speed bump … .

The JQ defendants, as owners and operators of the office complex, which was open to the public, had a nondelegable duty to provide the public with reasonably safe premises and a safe means of ingress and egress … . This duty may not be delegated by the owner to its agents or employees, or to an independent contractor … . The plaintiffs need not establish that the JQ defendants had notice of the alleged dangerous condition, as it was allegedly created by the JQ defendants or their agent … . The JQ defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create a dangerous condition on the premises in placing the speed bump, or causing it to be placed, in the subject location. There are triable issues of fact as to whether the speed bump constituted a dangerous condition or was readily visible to a disembarking bus passenger, given its location near the bus stop, and given the conflicting testimony as to whether the speed bump was painted yellow … . Furthermore, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the circumstances were such as to render the subject speed bump a trap for the unwary … . Some visible hazards, because of their nature or location, are likely to be overlooked. The facts here do not warrant concluding as a matter of law that the speed bump was so obvious that it would necessarily have been noticed by any careful observer, so as to make any warning superfluous… . Grizzell v JQ Assoc LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 06544, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

,

Primary Assumption of Risk Prohibited Suit by Student Softball Player Injured When Struck by the Ball

The Second Department determined an eighth-grade experienced softball player assumed the risk of being hit by the ball, noting that the supervisor’s temporary absence from the field was not the proximate cause of the injury.  The court provided a thorough explanation of the primary assumption of risk doctrine:

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a person who voluntarily participates in a sporting activity generally consents, by his or her participation, to those injury-causing events, conditions, and risks which are inherent in the activity … . Risks inherent in a sporting activity are those which are known, apparent, natural, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation … . Since the determination of the existence and scope of a duty of care requires “an examination of plaintiff’s reasonable expectations of the care owed him [or her] by others” …, the plaintiff’s consent does not merely furnish the defendant with a defense, it eliminates the duty of care that would otherwise exist. Accordingly, when a plaintiff assumes the risk of participating in a sporting event, “the defendant is relieved of legal duty to the plaintiff; and being under no duty, he [or she] cannot be charged with negligence” … . It is not necessary to the application of the doctrine that the injured plaintiff should have foreseen the exact manner in which the injury occurred “so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results”… . Cruz v Longwood Cent Sch Dist, 2013 NY Slip Op 06541, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

, ,

Malpractice Action Against Pharmacy Dismissed; Applicable Standard of Care and Insufficiency of Expert Affidavit Explained

In affirming the dismissal of a malpractice complaint against a pharmacy (Rite Aid) for failure to state a cause of action, the Fourth Department explained the standard of care imposed upon a pharmacy and the necessary contents of an expert affidavit alleging the profession has established a different standard of care:

With respect to the sufficiency of the complaint before us, we note that in New York “ ‘[t]he standard of care which is imposed on a pharmacist is generally described as ordinary care in the conduct of his [or her] business.  The rule of ordinary care as applied to the business of a druggist means the highest practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness and vigilance commensurate with the dangers involved and the consequences which may attend inattention’ ” … .  “Generally, a pharmacist cannot be held liable for negligence in the absence of an allegation that he or she failed to fill a prescription precisely as directed by the physician or was aware that the customer had a condition that would render the prescription of the drug at issue contraindicated” … .  Here, because plaintiff failed to allege that the dosage “fell below or exceeded the medically acceptable range of dosages that should be provided under any circumstance” …, that Rite Aid did not follow the prescribing physician’s directions, or that Rite Aid was aware that the drug was contraindicated for plaintiff, the court properly concluded that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for negligence on the part of Rite Aid … .

Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, she failed to establish through an expert’s affidavit that the pharmacy profession itself has created a different standard of care from that set forth herein.  In support of that contention, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a pharmacist who opined that “[t]he dose [of prednisone prescribed for plaintiff] triggers the need to contact the prescribing physician to double check the dosage and to notify the patient of the very high dose and risks associated with that dose.”  “ ‘[O]rdinarily, the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards would’ [be sufficient to allege a violation of a professional standard of care] .

. . Where the expert’s ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation, however, the opinion should be given no probative force and is insufficient to” establish a violation of a standard of care … . Thus, an expert’s affidavit is insufficient to establish that a standard of care exists where it is “devoid of any reference to a foundational scientific basis for its conclusions” … .  Here, the expert cites no industry standard, treatise or other authority in support of his opinion regarding the standard of care …, and plaintiff therefore failed to establish that the pharmacy profession itself imposes a different standard of care from that set forth in the applicable case law. Burton v Sciano, et al, 837, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Question of Fact About Whether Village Negligent in Maintaining Sewer System

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and determined plaintiffs had raised a question of fact about whether the defendant village was negligent in maintaining the sewer system resulting in sewage leaking into plaintiffs’ basement:

We conclude that issues of fact exist whether defendant “received ‘notice of a dangerous condition or ha[d] reason to believe that the [sewer] pipes ha[d] shifted or deteriorated and [were] likely to cause injury’ ” and whether defendant neglected to “ ‘make reasonable efforts to inspect and repair the defect’ ” … .  The record establishes that plaintiffs made numerous complaints to defendant for many years prior to the incident at issue and that defendant did not consistently keep written records of the complaints it received with respect to the sewer lines.  Mason v Village of Neward, 856, 4th Dept. 10-4-13

 

, , ,

Disclosure Appropriate in Lead Paint Case, Physician-Patient Privilege Waived

In a lead-paint-exposure case the Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court’s ruling that defendants were not entitled to full disclosure of records based on the physician-patient privilege.  The Fourth Department determined the privilege had been waived:

In view of the injuries alleged by plaintiff, we conclude that she waived her physician-patient privilege and any related privileges with respect to the records sought, and that those records may be material and necessary to the defense of the action … . There may be information in plaintiff’s records, however, that is irrelevant to this action, and there are legitimate concerns with respect to “the unfettered disclosure of sensitive and confidential information” contained in those records … . Thus, here, as in Dominique D. v Koerntgen (107 AD3d 1433, 1434), we modify the order by denying defendants’ motion and cross motion to the extent that they seek authorizations for the full disclosure of the records sought and by granting plaintiff’s cross motion to the extent that it seeks an in camera review of the records, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for such in camera review and the redaction of any irrelevant information… . Adams v Daughtery…, 907, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

Abutting Landowner Not Liable for Sidewalk Slip and Fall

In affirming summary judgment to defendants (abutting landowners) in a sidewalk slip and fall case, the Fourth Department explained:

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of negligent maintenance of or the existence of dangerous and defective conditions [on a] public sidewalk[] is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner” … .  That rule does not apply, however, if there is an ordinance or municipal charter that specifically imposes a duty on the abutting landowner to maintain and repair the public sidewalk and provides that a breach of that duty will result in liability for injuries to the users of the sidewalk; the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for the use of the abutting landowner; the abutting landowner affirmatively created the defect; or the abutting landowner negligently constructed or repaired the sidewalk … .

It is undisputed that the applicable town code does not impose liability on defendants for injuries to users of the public sidewalk abutting their property.  Furthermore, the testimony and affidavits submitted by defendants in support of their motion established that the sidewalk was not constructed in a special manner for their benefit, that they did not affirmatively create the defect, and that they did not negligently construct or repair the sidewalk.  Notably, defendants’ submissions established that the sidewalk was constructed by the builder of defendants’ development, who laid it in continuation of the sidewalk on the properties neighboring defendants’ property in both directions, and that defendants did not request that the sidewalk be constructed and had no input into its construction.  Contrary to plaintiffs’ further contention, defendants established that they did not affirmatively create the defect by any alleged special use of the sidewalk as a driveway… . Schroeck v Gies…, 1021, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

Summary Judgment for Out of Possession Landlord in Slip and Fall Case

In a slip and fall case, the Fourth Department determined the defendant out-of-possession landlord (McDonald’s) had met its burden demonstrating it was not responsible for snow and ice removal:

McDonald’s met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .  McDonald’s submitted evidence demonstrating that it, as a franchisor, lacked day-to-day control over the franchisee …, and that it was an out-of-possession landlord who did not retain control over the premises and was not contractually obligated to repair or maintain the premises… . Maisano v McDonald’s …, 994, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Negligence of Dog Owners In Calling A Dog Which Ran Into Bicyclist’s Path Is Actionable

Over a two-justice dissent, the First Department determined a lawsuit alleging the negligence of dog owners could go forward.  Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was injured when plaintiffs caused their dog to run into plaintiff’s path. After noting a change in the Court of Appeals’ approach to animal-caused injuries that are not the result of vicious propensities, the court wrote:

Recently, however, the Court of Appeals revisited Bard and Petrone when it decided an appeal of Hastings (94 AD3d 1171). In reversing the grant of summary judgment to the defendants, the Court recognized that an accident caused by an animal’s “aggressive or threatening behavior” is “fundamentally distinct” from one caused by an animal owner’s negligence in permitting the animal from wandering off the property where it was kept (21 NY3d 122, 125 [2013]). The Court stated that the consequence of a blanket rule against negligence claims in cases where animals displayed no vicious propensities “would be to immunize defendants who take little or no care to keep their livestock out of the roadway or off of other people’s property” (id.). * * *

Defendants’ actions can be likened to those of two people who decide to toss a ball back and forth over a trafficked road without regard to a bicyclist who is about to ride into the ball’s path. If the cyclist collided with the ball and was injured, certainly the people tossing the ball would be liable in negligence. Simply put, this case is different from the cases addressing the issue of injury claims arising out of animal behavior, because it was defendants’ actions, and not the dog’s own instinctive, volitional behavior, that most proximately caused the accident. Doerr v Goldsmith, 2013 NY slip Op 06442, 1st Dept 10-3-13

 

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