You are here: / Negligence
,

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

 

Accident Unforeseeable as a Matter of Law

The First Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of summary judgment and held that the accident was unforeseeable as a matter of law.  The plaintiff fell off a “setback roof” which was accessible only by climbing through the window of plaintiff’s friend’s apartment:

An accident is unforeseeable as a matter of law where the conduct or chain of events was so extraordinary that the defendant’s duty did not extend to preventing it … . Here, given the nature and location of the setback, it was unforeseeable that individuals would choose to access it, and thus defendant had no duty to guard against such an occurrence … . Powers v 32 E 31 LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02846, 1st Dept, 4-25-13

 

,

Even Though Length of Merging Lane Was a Factor in Accident, It Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident

Plaintiff’s car was side-swiped by defendant’s van when the van was in a merging lane called a taper.  The taper was 100 feet shorter than required.  In affirming summary judgment to the defendants responsible for constructing the taper, the First Department determined the van was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

The Supreme Court properly found that the alleged negligence of the DOE van’s driver was a proximate cause of the accident. Here, as the van was stopped next to plaintiff’s vehicle, the length of the taper, created by defendants Tully and Verizon, was entirely unrelated to the occurrence of the accident. As noted, the accident was caused by the alleged improper operation of the DOE vehicle. There is no evidence that the van was unable to safely merge, instead of merely trying to get to the front of the line of traffic moving through the construction zone. A jury would thus be required to speculate that the taper was a proximate cause of the accident. As a result, even assuming the taper in this case did not comply with …standards, and that it may have furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence, it was not a proximate cause of it … . Collins v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02816, 1st Dept, 4-25-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, ,

Consolidation of Trials Okay Even If Some Prejudice Results; Potential for Inconsistent Verdicts Eliminated by Consolidation

In a personal injury action, the fact that consolidation of two actions arising from the same accident will result in the jury learning of the existence of insurance did not warrant the denial of the motion to consolidate.  The Second Department wrote:

The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to order consolidation … . The interests of justice and judicial economy are better served by consolidation in those cases where the actions share material questions of law or fact … . A motion to consolidate should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the motion .. . Here, the appellants principally argued that they would be prejudiced if the two actions are tried before the same jury since it will bring to the jury’s attention the existence of insurance in Action No. 1 …. However, even assuming that under the circumstances of this case, the appellants would be prejudiced by consolidation, any such prejudice is outweighed by the possibility of inconsistent verdicts if separate trials ensue … . Furthermore, the possibility of such prejudice to the appellants can be mitigated by appropriate jury instructions.  Hanover Ins Group v Mezansky, 2013 NY Slip Op 02713, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS

Store Not Required to Continuously Mop Up Tracked-In Rain

In affirming the dismissal of a personal injury complaint the Second Department noted that defendant store-owners were “not required to cover all of [their] floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain” … . Valentin v Shoprite of Chester, 2013 NY Slip Op 02739, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

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