You are here: / Negligence
, ,

Grant of Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens Upheld

Plaintiff, a British citizen, was injured in England when he was a passenger on an all-terrain vehicle manufactured by a New York company, RII.  The Fourth Department affirmed the grant of RII’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 327 (forum non conveniens) and to have the proceeding moved to England.  Plaintiffs’ objections that contingency-fee arrangements are not allowed in England and loss of consortium damages are not recognized in England did not warrant denial of the motion.  The Fourth Department wrote:

…[T]he court properly determined that “the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere” …. Plaintiffs are both British citizens residing in Scotland. The accident occurred in England, and other witnesses, including the driver of the ATV, are located there. As the trial court in the federal action between the same parties noted, “highly material evidence, such as the eyewitness testimony, accident investigation documents and witnesses, the scene of the accident, and the vehicle itself, which will not be readily within plaintiffs’ control in this court, would be more accessible to both sides in a British forum” ….  Moreover, RII is amenable to service of process in Scotland or England, and it does not take issue with the conditions imposed by the court concerning the waiver of defenses based on jurisdiction and the statute of limitations.  Emslie v Recreative Industries, Inc., CA 12-01246, 139, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

, , ,

In Lead Paint Exposure Case, Court’s Order to Provide Medical Report Linking Injuries to Exposure Before Depositions Upheld

In a case which alleged plaintiff was injured by lead paint exposure, Supreme Court ordered plaintiff, as part of discovery, to produce a medical report linking the injuries to lead exposure before depositions.  The Fourth Department affirmed over a dissent which argued plaintiff was improperly being forced to hire an expert at the very outset of the litigation:

Under the unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its broad discretion in directing plaintiff to produce a medical report containing a diagnosis of the alleged injuries sustained by plaintiff and causally relating such injuries to lead exposure before any CPLR 3121 examinations are conducted.  As previously noted, plaintiff alleges numerous and wide- ranging neurological, physiological, psychological, educational, and occupational effects of his childhood exposure to lead. Although plaintiff disclosed his medical and educational records, none of those records diagnoses plaintiff with a lead-related injury or causally relates any of plaintiff’s alleged physical or mental conditions to lead exposure. Indeed, plaintiff’s mother testified at her deposition that no health care provider had ever told her that plaintiff had “any residual injuries from lead exposure.” The only reference in the disclosed records to an injury that may have been caused by exposure to lead is a school district health and development assessment, which states that “[e]levated [blood] lead level may have had an effect” on plaintiff’s educational performance. Although the dissent is correct that CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17 do not require the disclosure directed in this case, they likewise do not preclude a trial judge from proceeding in the manner at issue herein. Giles v A. Gi Yi, et al, CA 12-01288, 59, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Criteria for Negligent Misrepresentation Action

In reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss an action for negligent misrepresentation concerning the underwriting of mortgage loans, the Fourth Department determined plaintiff had not demonstrated the requisite “privity-like” relationship:

A cause of action for negligent misrepresentation must allege “ ‘(1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to plaintiff; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information’ ”… . In this case, we agree … that plaintiffs failed to allege the requisite special relationship between it and plaintiff …to state a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation … .  Flaherty Funding Corporation … v Johnson …, CA 12-02018, 427, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Plaintiff Need Not Exclude Every Other Possible Cause of an Accident to Demonstrate Proximate Cause

In reversing the grant of summary judgment to the defendant because of an alleged inability of the plaintiff to establish proximate cause, the Fourth Department determined the plaintiff need not exclude every possible cause of the accident other than the defendant’s acts or omissions:

In order to establish proximate cause, “[p]laintiffs need not positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident. Rather, the proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence . . . A plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely . . . or more reasonable . . . that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence than by some other agency” … . Furthermore, it is well settled that, in seeking summary judgment dismissing a complaint, a defendant “must affirmatively establish the merits of its . . . defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” … .  New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal… v Casella Construction, Ind, CA 12-02094, 399, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Plaintiff Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether Her Injuries Were Related to a Preexisting Condition

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department reversed the motion court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendant in an automobile-accident personal injury action.  The Fourth Department determined plaintiff had not raised a question of fact in response to the proof submitted by defendant that her injuries were linked to a preexisting condition, and not the accident:

“[E]ven where there is objective medical proof [of a serious injury], when additional contributory factors interrupt the chain of causation between the accident and claimed injury—such as a gap in treatment, an intervening medical problem or a preexisting condition—summary dismissal of the complaint may be appropriate” …. Here, defendants met their initial burden on the motion with respect to the permanent consequential limitation of use, significant limitation of use, and 90/180-day categories by offering “persuasive evidence that plaintiff’s alleged pain and injuries were related to a preexisting condition” … .  Kwitek… v Seier…, CA 12-01607, 352, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

Question of Fact About Defect In Diving Board Precluded Summary Judgment Based Upon Primary Assumption of Risk

Plaintiff was injured when he slipped from a diving board at defendant’s pool.  In finding a question of fact had been raised about whether there existed a concealed or unreasonably increased risk on the surface of the diving board, the Fourth Department explained the applicable law:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk “generally constitutes a complete defense to an action to recover damages for personal injuries . . . and applies to the voluntary participation in sporting activities” .. . Under that doctrine, “a person who voluntarily participates in a sporting activity generally consents, by his or her participation, to those injury-causing events, conditions[] and risks [that] are inherent in the activity” … . The owner of recreational premises owes a duty “to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be. If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . A plaintiff, however, will not be deemed to have consented to “concealed or unreasonably increased risks” … . Thus, in assessing whether the relevant duty has been breached, it must be determined “whether the conditions caused by the defendant[’s] negligence are unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” … . Menter v City of Olean, CA 12-01304, 308, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

, ,

2 ½ Inch Drop in Pavement Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Loss of Control of Her Vehicle

The Fourth Department affirmed the Court of Claims’ determination that a 21/2 inch drop off in the shoulder of a road was not the proximate cause of a driver’s losing control of her vehicle.  The doctrine of “qualified immunity” in connection with road defects is explained. Marrow… v State…, CA 12-00974, 241, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Release Signed in Anticipation of a Skydiving Course Precluded Personal Injury Action

Plaintiff had signed a release of liability in connection with a one-hour skydiving course.  Before the course could be given, the plane crashed and plaintiff was injured.  In moving to dismiss the complaint, the defendants argued that General Obligations Law 5-326, which renders releases issued by “places of recreation” void, did not apply.  The motion court denied the motion to dismiss and the Fourth Department affirmed:

Defendants assert that section 5-326 does not apply here because [defendant] is an instructional facility, rather than a recreational facility. Where a facility is “used for purely instructional purposes,” section 5-326 is inapplicable even if the instruction that is provided relates to an activity that is recreational in nature … . “In assessing whether a facility is instructional or recreational, courts have examined, inter alia, the organization’s name, its certificate of incorporation, its statement of purpose and whether the money it charges is tuition or a fee for use of the facility” …. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, a court “may . . . consider affidavits and other evidentiary material to ‘establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action’ ” … We conclude that [defendant’s] facility is not used purely for instructional purposes based upon our review of [defendant’s] certificate of incorporation, including the statement of purpose contained therein; the services for which plaintiff paid a fee, i.e., whether she paid for a course of instruction or for use of the facilities; as well as the other evidence submitted by defendants. Thus, defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that General Obligations Law § 5-326 does not apply here …  and have failed to establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action. Tiede v Frontier Skydivers, Inc, CA 12-01861, 216, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Car Dealership Was Not the Owner of a Car Lent to a Customer While Customer’s Vehicle Was Repaired—Therefore Dealership Was Not Vicariously Liable for Injury Caused by the Driver of the Loaned Car

In reversing the motion court and granting summary judgment to defendant car dealership, the Fourth Department (over a dissent) determined that defendant dealership was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, and therefore could not be held vicariously liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388.  Defendant’s employee (the daughter of the owner) agreed to lend her personal car to one Leederman while Leederman’s vehicle was being fixed at the dealership.  All of defendant’s “loaner cars” were in use and the dealership’s owner asked his daughter to lend her car to Leederman.  Leederman, in turn, let defendant Trummer use the car.  Trummer was driving when the accident occurred.  The Fourth Department wrote:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, an owner of a motor vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligent use or operation of such vehicle by anyone operating the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission (see § 388 [1] …).The term “owner” is defined as “[a] person, other than a lien holder, having the property in or title to a vehicle . . . The term includes a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle . . . subject to a security interest in another person and also includes any lessee or bailee of a motor vehicle . . . having the exclusive use thereof, under a lease or otherwise, for a period greater than thirty days” (§ 128; see § 388 [3]).

We agree with defendant that it established as a matter of law that it was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident at issue, and that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to ownership of that vehicle.  Monette v Trummer, et al, CA 12-01274, 79, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

Contract Between Employer and Contractor Did Not Create a Duty Owed to Employee/Instrument of Harm Doctrine Not Applicable

Plaintiff was standing on a barrel performing work for his employer.  In reaching for a tool he grabbed onto some bricks on a column.  The bricks came loose and plaintiff lost his balance and fell.  Plaintiff sued the parties responsible for installing the bricks six years before (pursuant to a contract with the employer).  In affirming summary judgment to the defendants, the Fourth Department wrote:

Here, defendants established as a matter of law that they did not owe any duty to plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although defendants had contractual obligations with respect to the construction of the project for plaintiff’s employer, as a general rule “a contractual obligation, standing alone, will . . . not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party,” i.e., a person who is not a party to the contract …. There is an exception to that general rule, however, “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, ‘launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’ ” …, thereby “creat[ing] an unreasonable risk of harm to others, or increas[ing] that risk” …. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the instrument of harm doctrine does not apply to the facts of this case, and thus there was no duty of care running from defendants to plaintiff based on that doctrine ….  Spaulding v Loomis Masonry, Inc. et al, CA 12-01395, 32, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

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