You are here: / Negligence
, ,

Leaky Condominium Roof Supported Negligence and Nuisance

In an action based on a leaky roof in a condominium, the First Department determined plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on the negligence cause of action against the sponsor and the cause of action for nuisance, also sounding in negligence, should not be dismissed:

The sponsor owed a nondelegable duty to plaintiffs to keep the condominium, including its roof, in good repair (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 78[1];…) . The sponsor breached that duty: Its principal… admitted that the original roof that the sponsor had caused to be installed did not render the condominium watertight and that there were instances of water infiltration into plaintiffs’ unit that needed to be addressed by the sponsor. * * *

Plaintiffs are correct that nuisance can be negligent; it does not have to be intentional…. In any event, they raised a triable issue of fact whether the sponsor’s allowing water to continue infiltrating their unit was intentional….  Liberman v Cayre Synergy 73rd LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04996, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

,

Testimony that Bus Company Held to Higher Standard Required Reversal

In an action based on the allegation a bus was traveling too close to the curb when it struck plaintiff, the First Department (over a dissent) determined testimony that bus drivers’ operating criteria “are much higher than anyone else’s, so I would look at the accident by our standards a lot different from anyone else” required a new trial on liability:

The admission of testimony that holds a defendant to a higher standard of care than required by common law is clearly erroneous…. Moreover, the admitted testimony cannot be considered harmless error because it concerns the ultimate issue to be decided and corroborates unsupported theories of liability proffered by plaintiff’s expert, thereby lending them an unwarranted air of authority. It is well settled that “the duty owed by one member of society to another is a legal issue for the courts”…. Only after the extent of a duty has been established as a matter of law may a jury resolve — as a question of fact — whether a particular defendant has breached that duty with respect to a particular plaintiff…. As this Court has noted numerous times, “Where the offered proof intrudes upon the exclusive prerogative of the court to render a ruling on a legal issue, the attempt by a plaintiff to arrogate to himself a judicial function under the guise of expert testimony will be rejected”….  Williams v NYC Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 04975, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

Res Ipsa Loquitur Applied to Garage Door Suddenly Coming Down

The First Department explained the application of res ipsa loquitur, where it was alleged a garage door suddenly came down on plaintiff’s head, as follows:

The motion court correctly determined that res ipsa loquitur applies in this action involving an accident that occurred, according to plaintiff’s testimony, when a garage door suddenly fell and struck him on the head, since this is the type of event that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence … . Notwithstanding defendants’ contentions that others could have had access to the garage door, plaintiff demonstrated sufficient exclusivity of control. “[R]es ipsa loquitur does not require sole physical access to the instrumentality causing the injury and can be applied in situations where more than one defendant could have exercised exclusive control” … . Hutchings v Yuter, 2013 NY Slip Op 04988, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

,

Contractual Relationship Did Not Preclude Causes of Action Sounding in Tort

In affirming most of Supreme Court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Fourth Department explained why the economic loss doctrine did not preclude plaintiff’s recovery in tort, in spite of the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant and the contract-based causes of action in the complaint.  Pursuant to two contracts, the defendant supplied electronics and fluorescent-tube recycling systems which allegedly failed resulting in mercury contamination:

…[T]he economic loss doctrine does not preclude plaintiff from recovering in tort as a matter of law.“ Pursuant to that doctrine, a plaintiff may not recover in tort against a manufacturer for economic loss that is contractually based, ‘whether due to injury to the product itself or consequential losses flowing therefrom’ ”…. Where, however, there is harm to persons or property other than the property that is the subject of the contract, a plaintiff is entitled to recover in tort… .  The factors to consider are “the nature of the defect, the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred, and the damages sought”…. We conclude that defendant failed to meet its initial burden on the motion with respect to the causes of action sounding in tort because the evidence submitted by defendant establishes that the mercury contamination of plaintiff’s facility, which was allegedly caused by defendant’s products, caused damage to persons and property other than the property that was the subject of the contracts.   Electrical Waste Recycling Group, Limited v Andela Tool & Machine, Inc…, 626, 4th Dept 6-28-13

 

, ,

DOCTOR INTENTIONALLY LEFT A GUIDE WIRE USED DURING SURGERY INSIDE PLAINTIFF’S BODY WHEN HE WAS UNABLE TO FIND IT, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the medical malpractice action was properly dismissed after plaintiff’s proof was put in. Defendant doctor intentionally left a guide wire (used during a surgical procedure) inside plaintiff’s body after he was unable to locate it. The guide wire was later removed with the aid of a special x-ray machine. The “foreign object” was not left plaintiff’s body unintentionally, which is a requirement of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. And plaintiff was unable to show that it was the defendant doctor, and not someone else involved in the surgery, who exercised control over the guide wire:

Plaintiff Marguerite James commenced this medical malpractice action against defendants Dr. David Wormuth and his practice … after he failed to remove a localization guide wire during a biopsy of an area on plaintiff’s lung. On this appeal from the Appellate Division order affirming the dismissal of her amended complaint, we affirm.

In October 2004, a guide wire inserted into the plaintiff to assist with a biopsy of an area in her lung dislodged. Defendant Dr. Wormuth proceeded with the biopsy, but was unable to locate the dislodged wire. After an unsuccessful 20-minute manual search for the wire, defendant determined that it was better for the plaintiff to leave the wire and end the surgical procedure, rather than to extend the amount of time she was in surgery for him to continue searching for the wire. Defendant informed plaintiff after the surgery that he could not find the wire, and that he had determined that it was better to leave it rather than continue the search procedure.

Plaintiff subsequently returned to defendant complaining of pain she attributed to the lodged wire, and which she said was so significant that it disrupted her ability to work. Approximately two months after the first procedure, defendant performed a second operation. In that procedure, he successfully … located and removed the wire with the use of a special X-ray machine known as a C-arm. * * *

To the extent counsel argued that res ipsa loquitur applies because the wire could only have dislodged due to the doctor’s negligence, plaintiff failed to establish the elements of res ipsa, specifically that Dr. Wormuth had exclusive control … . Dr. Wormuth testified that there were other medical personnel involved in the process of inserting the wire and transporting the plaintiff prior to the doctor’s discovery that the wire had dislodged. Plaintiff did not produce any evidence to the contrary. Instead, plaintiff’s counsel appears to have … believed that the control element was satisfied because the doctor had control over the operation. Whether the doctor was in control of the operation does not address the question of whether he was in exclusive control of the instrumentality, because several other individuals participated to an extent in the medical procedure. Given that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that the doctor had exclusive control of the wire, or sufficient proof that “eliminate[s] within reason all explanations for the injury other than the defendant’s negligence,” the control element clearly has not been satisfied … . James v Wormuth, 2013 NY Slip Op 04839 [21 NY3d 540] CtApp 6-27-13

 

,

Theories Not Included in Notice of Claim Precluded

In a slip and fall case, the First Department precluded plaintiff from asserting theories of liability not in the notice of claim:

The notice of claim limited plaintiffs’ theory of liability to negligent maintenance, upkeep and repair of the subject staircase, asserting that the infant plaintiff was caused to slip and fall due to a liquid substance on the floor and inadequate lighting. The infant plaintiff testified that he was caused to fall by “slippery juice” that was “all over the stairs.” He testified that he wasn’t able to see all of the juice due to insufficient lighting. Plaintiffs’ new theory, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, that the infant plaintiff was caused to slip and fall due to various design defects including, inter alia, treads and risers of insufficient length, an improperly placed handrail and stairs not coated with nonskid materials, is precluded… Rodriguez v Board of Educ of the City of NY, 2013 NY Slip Op 04912, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

Voluntary Participation in Fight Precludes Suit Alleging Inadequate Building Security

The First Department determined that plaintiff’s voluntary participation in a fight severed any causal connection between his injuries and the defendant building owner’s and defendant building manager’s alleged failure to keep the premises safe:

Courts in all four judicial departments have found that one who voluntarily participates in a physical fight cannot recover from a party generally charged with ensuring a safe environment. Thus, in Williams v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Mount Vernon (277 AD2d 373 [2d Dept 2000]), the duty of supervision normally imposed on a school was found to have been displaced by the plaintiff student’s voluntary participation in a fight. Similar results obtained in Borelli v Board of Educ. of Highland School Dist. (156 AD2d 903 [3d Dept 1989) and in Ruggerio v Board of Educ. of City of Jamestown (31 AD2d 884, 884 [4th Dept 1969] [holding that “(p)laintiff’s conduct, demonstrating a lack of reasonable regard for his own safety, was a direct cause of the incident resulting in his injury and, as such, defeats his right of recovery against the defendant Board of Education”], affd 26 NY2d 849 [1970]).  This Court in Vega v Ramirez (57 AD3d 299 [1st Dept 2008]) also held that a plaintiff’s willing participation in a fight negates any negligence committed by a defendant with a duty to provide security.  Carreras v Morrisania Towers Hous Co Ltd Partnership, 2013 NY Slip Op 04893, 1st Dept 6-27-13

THIRD PARTY ASSAULT

, , ,

Hospital Can Be Vicariously Liable for Actions of Non-employee Physician Under Apparent or Ostensible Agency Theory

The Second Department explained when a hospital can be held vicariously responsible, under a theory of apparent or ostensible agency, for the actions of non-employee physicians who provide medical services at the hospital:

“A hospital [is] responsible to a patient who sought medical care at the hospital, . . . rather than from any particular physician although the physician whose malpractice caused injury to the patient was not an employee of the hospital”… . To create an apparent or ostensible agency, the plaintiff must reasonably rely on the appearance of authority, based on some misleading words or conduct by the principal, not the agent. Moreover, the plaintiff must accept the services of the agent in reliance upon the perceived relationship between the agent and the principal, and not on reliance on the agent’s skill…. In the context of a medical malpractice action, the patient must have reasonably believed that the physicians treating her were provided by the hospital or acted on the hospital’s… . In evaluating whether a doctor is the apparent agent of a hospital, a court should consider all attendant circumstances to determine whether the patient could properly have believed that the physician was provided by the hospital… .  Loaiza v Lam, 2013 NY Slip Op 04780, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

,

Late Notice of Claim Properly Allowed in Absence of Reasonable Excuse

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of leave to serve a late notice of claim against a school district, in the absence of a reasonable excuse:

Here …[t]he District…acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose. The District’s employee witnessed the infant petitioner’s accident, which occurred during supervised cheerleading practice, and a designated school authority prepared a medical claim form within a week after the accident…. Furthermore, the infant petitioner was transported from the school to the hospital to be treated for a broken arm…. Since the District acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioners’ claim, the petitioners met their initial burden of showing a lack of prejudice…. The District’s conclusory assertions of prejudice, based solely on the petitioners’ two-month delay in serving the notice of claim, were insufficient to rebut the petitioners’ showing….  While the petitioners’ excuses for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim were not reasonable…, the absence of a reasonable excuse is not fatal to the petition where, as here, there was actual notice and an absence of prejudice … .  Matter of Viola v Ronkonkoma Middle Sch, 2013 NY Slip Op 04819, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

,

Hospital Did Not Owe Intoxicated Patient a Duty to Prevent Him from Leaving Hospital

Over a dissent, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined (under the facts of the case) a hospital and an emergency room doctor did not owe an intoxicated patient a duty to prevent him from leaving a hospital.  The patient was struck by a car an hour or two after leaving.

…Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 specifically addresses the question of when a hospital may retain “a person whose mental or physical functioning is substantially impaired as a result of the presence of alcohol . . . in his or her body” (Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 [a] [1]). The statute deals separately with the case of an intoxicated person “who comes voluntarily or is brought without his or her objection” to a hospital or other treatment facility (§ 22.09 [d]) and one “who is brought with his or her objection” (§ 22.09 [e]). In the latter case, the person “may be retained for emergency treatment” if he or she is examined by a doctor and found to be incapacitated to such a degree that “there is a likelihood to result in harm to the person or others” (§ 22.09 [e]); a “likelihood to result in harm” to oneself must be “manifested by threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm or other conduct” that demonstrates a danger of self-injury (Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 [a] [3]). For the former category — people who, like plaintiff, come to the hospital voluntarily — the Mental Hygiene Law makes no provision for involuntary retention.

Plaintiff concedes that he could not have been retained under Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09. He argues that the Mental Hygiene Law is not the only possible source of a right to confine an intoxicated person. We need not decide that question: Plaintiff cites no other statute, and there is no principle of common law, that would permit the restraint of a patient on the facts of this case.  Kowalski v St Francis Hospital and Health Centers, et al, No 128, CtApp 6-26-13

 

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