You are here: / Negligence
,

Jury Need Not Draw the Permissible Inference of Negligence Under Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Even Where Defendant Offers No Proof 

The Second Department explained that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur makes out a prima facie case of negligence but the jury is not required to draw the permissible inference of negligence, even where the defendant offers no proof:

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident, upon a plaintiff’s showing that the event is of the kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence and was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, without any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff …. “The rule has the effect of creating a prima facie case of negligence sufficient for submission to the jury, and the jury may-but is not required to-draw the permissible inference” …. “[T]he use of res ipsa loquitur does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proof” …. In a res ipsa loquitur case, the jury has great latitude; even when the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and the defendant has offered no proof, the jury nonetheless is entitled to find for the defendant …, subject, of course, to appellate review. Nikollbibaj v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03306, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

,

Property Owner’s Liability for Snow and Ice on Sidewalk​

In reversing the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case, the Second Department explained the controlling law with respect to ice and snow on a municipal sidewalk abutting private property as follows:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability from the City to the property owner for personal injuries proximately caused by the owner’s failure to maintain the sidewalk abutting its premises in a reasonably safe condition (including the negligent failure to remove snow, ice, or other material from the sidewalk), with several exceptions not relevant here … .

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 does not impose strict liability upon the property owner, and the injured party has the obligation to prove the elements of negligence to demonstrate that an owner is liable …. Thus, in support of a motion for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, the property owner has the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it …. Gyokchyan v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03302, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

Criteria for Non-Negligent Explanation for Striking Vehicle from Behind Described​​​​

In finding the defendant failed to demonstrate a non-negligent reason for his striking the plaintiff’s vehicle from behind (in defendant’s motion for summary judgment), the Fourth Department explained:

A rear-end collision with a vehicle that is stopped or is in the process of stopping ‘creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the [driver] of the rearmost vehicle, thereby requiring that [driver] to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision’ ” …. We agree with plaintiff that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the accident was the result of unanticipated brake failure, a nonnegligent explanation alleged by defendant in support of his cross motion… “Where, as here, .. . defendant[] intend[s] ‘to lay the blame for the accident on brake failure, it [is] incumbent upon [him] to show that the problem with the brakes was unanticipated, and that [he] had exercised reasonable care to keep them in good working order’ ” … .  Lyons v Zeman, CA 12-02074, 479, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, , ,

“Speaking Authorizations” Re Non-Party Healthcare Providers in Lead-Paint Injury Case Okay/But Not Okay for Non-Party Educators

In a lead-paint injury case, the Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted a motion to preclude evidence of plaintiff’s mental or physical condition unless plaintiff provided defendant with so-called “speaking authorizations” allowing defendant to communicate with non-party healthcare providers about the plaintiff’s injuries.  However, the Fourth Department did not agree with Supreme Court’s grant of the same motion with respect to non-party educators (two justices dissented on that issue):

In Arons v Jutkowitz …, the Court of Appeals provided the framework for conducting discovery with regard to nonparty healthcare providers, which includes the use of speaking authorizations. Arons, however, does not authorize defendant to obtain speaking authorizations for plaintiff’s educators. We decline to extend Arons to require production of speaking authorizations to anyone other than nonparty healthcare providers. The Arons decision is narrow in scope and provides a framework as to how parties must procedurally comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 when attempting to speak with an adverse party’s treating physician. Defendant made no showing that the discovery devices available under the CPLR and the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts were inadequate to obtain the necessary discovery. McCarter v Woods, CA 12-00678, 1117, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

, , ,

Okay to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Medical Reports Linking Injury to Lead Paint or Be Precluded from Introducing Such Evidence

In a lead-paint injury action, defendants moved to compel plaintiff to produce medical reports linking the injuries to lead and to provide an amended bill of particulars to reflect those injuries. In the alternative the defendants moved to preclude proof of plaintiff’s injuries in the absence of such medical reports.  Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion and the Fourth Department affirmed.  In addition, the Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court was not required to take judicial notice of the federal Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (42 USC 4851), which provides a private right of action for lead-related damages, because plaintiff was not “relying” on the statute.  Hamilton v Miller…, CA 12-01574, 355, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Normal Negligence Theories Apply to Injury Resulting from Animal Wandering Off (Cow Struck By Car)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined that the line of strict liability “knowledge-of-an-animal’s-vicious-propensities” cases did not apply to this case, where a cow was negligently allowed to wander off, causing injury to the plaintiff who struck the cow with her car.  In a case like this, normal negligence theories apply:

[Here the claim] … is that a farm animal was permitted to wander off the property where it was kept through the negligence of the owner of the property and the owner of the animal. To apply the rule of Bard — that “when harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner’s liability is determined solely” by the vicious propensity rule (6 NY3d at 599) — in a case like this 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.  We therefore hold that a landowner or the owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort-law principles when a farm animal — i.e., a domestic animal as that term is defined in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7) — is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept. We do not consider whether the same rule applies to dogs, cats or other household pets; that question must await a different case.  Hastings v Sauve, et al, No 78, CtApp, 5-2-13

 

,

Limitation of Liability Clause in House-Design Contract Valid

he defendant designed plaintiffs’ residence and the first floor was built two feet below what the regulations required resulting in increased flood insurance premiums.  In the contract between the parties, it was agreed to limit defendant’s liability to the amount of the fees paid by plaintiffs.  After noting that contractual liability-limit clauses are valid and enforced except in cases of “gross negligence,” the Third Department determined “gross negligence” had not been demonstrated:  In describing “gross negligence,” the Third Department wrote:

In this context, it is settled  that  “gross negligence differs in kind, not only in degree, from claims of ordinary negligence.  It is conduct  that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks of intentional wrongdoing” … .  Soja v Keystone Tozze, LLC, 515422, 3rd Dept 5-2-13

 

,

Contract-Based Duty Owed to Non-Party Explained

In this case a stove that was not secured to the wall with a bracket tipped over as children either stood or jumped on the oven door. One of the children was killed.  One of the many issues in the case was whether the contractor who installed the stove without the bracket was liable to the surviving child.  In upholding the denial of the contractor’s motion for summary judgment, the Third Department explained when a contractual relationship can give rise to tort liability to a third party:

Defendant contends that, since he performed work as a contractor for the rental agent, he owed no duty to the surviving child and, thus, his motion for summary judgment in this regard should have been granted. “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” …. The  three limited exceptions to this general rule include: “(1) where  the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance  of his [or her] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm;  (2) where  the plaintiff detrimentally relies on  the continued performance  of the contracting party’s duties[;] and  (3) where  the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” …. Care must be taken in the application of the exceptions so that they do not “swallow up the general rule” …, and determining whether a duty exists is “a question of law for the courts” ….  Kelley…v Schneck…, 515645, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

ESPINAL

, ,

Plaintiff Was Unable to Demonstrate Landlord Had Knowledge of Presence of Lead Paint​

Plaintiff’s inability to demonstrate the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the presence of lead paint in defendant’s building, in the face of defendant’s deposition testimony about his lack of knowledge, justified the dismissal of the lead-paint-injury complaint.  The Third Department explained:

“[I]n 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” ….To  establish constructive notice in the context of a lead paint case, the plaintiff must show “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 lead-based 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” … . Hines v Double D and S Realty Management Corp, 515635, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

,

Criteria for Negligence on Part of Out-of-Possession Landlord with Limited Right of Reentry​

In dismissing a personal injury action stemming from plaintiff’s fall down a two-step interior stairway, the First Department explained the liability criteria for an out-of-possession landlord with limited right to reenter:

As out-of-possession landlords, with a limited right to reenter, they could only be liable for negligence “based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” …. The only condition alleged on appeal to serve as a predicate for [defendant’s] potential liability involves the riser heights of the steps. Even if the alleged Building Code provision, which concerns uniformity, were applicable and had been violated, the same would not constitute a significant structural or design defect and could not serve as a basis for liability against [defendant]. Drotar v Sweet Thing, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03180, 1st Dept, 5-2-13

SLIP AND FALL

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