Negligence – Page 44 – New York Appellate Digest

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS INSPECTED “MORE THAN AN HOUR” BEFORE AND EVIDENCE OTHERS WERE IN THE AREA AT THE TIME OF THE FALL DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant hospital did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the wet substance on the floor alleged to have cause plaintiff’s slip and fall. Evidence that the corridor in question was inspected “more than an hour” before the slip and fall and evidence others were in the corridor when plaintiff fell did not eliminate questions fact about whether the hospital had constructive notice of the condition:

… [T]he defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it had constructive notice of the alleged slippery condition. The defendant’s evidence that the corridor was inspected more than an hour before the accident was insufficient to establish that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy the condition. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony, submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, established that there were at least three nurses and a doctor present in the corridor at the time of her fall … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not notice anything on the floor before she fell was insufficient to establish that the condition would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection … . Croake v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 06723, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall, evidence the area of the fall was inspected “more than an hour” before the fall does not demonstrate the defendant did not have constructive notice of the condition.

December 27, 2023

Contract Law, Negligence

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE WAS SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF UNDER UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE RELEASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this traffic accident case had raised questions of fact about when the release signed by plaintiff under unfair circumstances:

… [P]laintiff’s allegations were sufficient to raise questions of fact as to whether the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances that indicate unfairness, and whether it was not “fairly and knowingly” made … . The plaintiff averred, among other things, that shortly after the accident, an insurance representative for the defendants called him “repeatedly;” that he had difficulty understanding the defendants’ representative due to a language barrier; that the defendants’ representative, who had him sign the release to obtain money for medical bills, never explained that the document he signed was a release or had the legal effect of the release; and that the plaintiff was not represented by an attorney at the time he signed the release. Moreover, the plaintiff raised questions of fact as to whether there was mutual mistake as to the nature of the injuries sustained by plaintiff from the alleged accident … . Wei Qiang Huang v Llerena-Salazar, 2023 NY Slip Op 06772, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: Unfair circumstances surrounding the signing of a release, short of fraud, can invalidate it.

December 27, 2023

Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Municipal Law, Negligence

THE RESPONDENT CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS SURROUNDING THE BUS-VEHICLE COLLISION AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE TEN MONTH DELAY IN FILING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the respondent city in this bus-vehicle accident case had timely knowledge of the essential facts of the incident and therefore was not prejudiced by the late notice of claim. The court noted that law office failure is not an adequate excuse for failing to timely file a notice of claim, but using that excuse did not mandate denial of the motion:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner’s application, as petitioner established that respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts within the statutorily prescribed filing period … . As the record showed, the accident involved an NYCTA-owned bus and an NYCTA driver, and was immediately investigated by an NYCTA supervisor. Therefore, petitioner sustained his burden of showing that respondents would not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits if he were permitted leave to file a late notice of claim … .

In response to petitioner’s showing, respondents offered no particularized evidence suggesting that they would be prejudiced by the delay. Therefore, respondents have failed to rebut petitioner’s showing … . Clarke v New York City Tr. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 06591, First Dept 12-21-23

Practice Point: If the municipality has timely knowledge of the essential fact underlying a claim (here a bus-vehicle accident) and is not prejudiced by the delay, a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim may be granted even in the absence of an adequate excuse.

December 21, 2023

Court of Claims, Evidence, Negligence

THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED THE STATE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE POTHOLE WHERE PLAINTIFF FRACTURED HER ANKLE AND FAILED TO REPAIR IT; NONJURY VERDICT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing a nonjury verdict in the Court of Claims, determined the evidence demonstrated the defendant (NYS) had constructive notice of the pothole where plaintiff fractured her ankle in September 2017:

All four DOT [Department of Transportation] witnesses acknowledged that they did not know how long the pothole existed prior to [plaintiff’s] accident. One DOT witness, a retired assistant resident engineer, confirmed that with a “freeze/thaw in the winter . . . the actual [popping out [of a pothole] . . . can occur sometime later, even in warmer months.” The key testimony came from George Laundrie, DOT’s resident engineer … . When asked whether the pothole “must have formed sometime prior to the summer” of 2017, Laundrie responded: “I don’t think it’s fair to say it must have formed prior to June of 2017. I think it’d be fair to say it’s likely it probably formed prior to that . . . , I wouldn’t say must have, but it’s probably pretty likely it formed prior to June.” …

In reviewing a nonjury verdict on appeal, this Court has broad, independent authority to weigh the evidence and render a judgment “warranted by the facts” … . In our view, Laundrie’s testimony was not ambiguous and established that it was probable that the pothole existed for several months before Feeney’s accident. Correspondingly, the record shows that defendant’s road maintenance crews worked in this area six times since January 2017, and most recently in July 2017. On this record, we conclude that claimants met their burden of proving that despite having constructive notice, defendants were negligent in failing to repair the pothole (see PJI 1:60). Inasmuch as issues of comparative negligence and damages remain to be determined, the claim must be remitted to the Court of Claims (see Court of Claims Act … . Feeney v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 06574, Third Dept 12-21-23

Practice Point: Here the Third Department reversed a nonjury verdict in the Court of Claims finding that the evidence demonstrated the State had constructive notice of the pothole where plaintiff fractured her ankle and negligently failed to repair. The matter was sent back for determination of the comparative negligence and damages issues.

December 21, 2023

Evidence, Negligence, Vehicle and Traffic Law

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE A TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST, SAW WHAT WAS THERE TO BE SEEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant driver saw what was there to be seen in this bicycle-vehicle accident. Plaintiff bicyclist alleged he was halfway across the road in a crosswalk when defendant made a sudden turn into his path:

“Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231, a person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle. A bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself into a dangerous position” … . Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(a), motorists must “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian, or domestic animal” on the roadway and to “give warning by sounding the horn when necessary” … . A motorist also has a “common-law duty to see that which he [or she] should have seen through the proper use of his [or her] senses” … .

… T]he defendant … failed to establish … that his conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident. The defendant testified at his deposition that he slowly made his turn, and that he did not see the plaintiff prior to the impact. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he saw the defendant’s vehicle make a sudden right turn in front of him one second prior to the impact. Thus, the defendant’s own submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of his senses … . Khalil v Garcia-Olea, 2023 NY Slip Op 06517, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: A driver is expected to see what is there to be seen. Here it was alleged defendant driver made a turn into the path of plaintiff bicyclist. Defendant driver’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

December 20, 2023

Education-School Law, Negligence

INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING BECAUSE OF PEBBLES AND WET GRASS ON THE SOCCER FIELD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined infant plaintiff assumed the risk of falling in a school pick-up soccer game. Plaintiff alleged he fell because of pebbles and wet grass on the playing field:

The infant plaintiff testified that he fell because of a combination of, among other things, pebbles on the field and wet and muddy grass. The infant plaintiff further testified that there were no puddles, and the grass was wet from the previous day’s rain and other students playing with water balloons on the field. However, neither the pebbles nor the wet grass described in this case presented a concealed or unreasonably increased risk beyond those inherent in the activity of outdoor soccer … , regardless of whether the wet grass was caused by rain or water balloons … . Furthermore, merely allowing children to play on a field with pebbles and wet grass does not constitute negligent supervision … . To hold otherwise would effectively prohibit schools from utilizing outdoor playing fields … . C.P.G. v Uniondale Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 06512, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: Here the infant plaintiff assumed the risk of falling because of pebbles and wet grass on the soccer playing field.

December 20, 2023

Appeals, Contract Law, Negligence

NONE OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLIED TO THE DEFENDANT FIRE SAFETY AND SECURITY CONTRACTOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE IT BELOW, BECAUSE IT CONCERNED A QUESTION OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant fire safety and security contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. It was alleged the steps where plaintiff fell were in disrepair and were not sufficiently illuminated, which had nothing to do with defendant-contractor’s duties. Therefore the contractor did not “launch and instrument of harm,” plaintiff could not have relied upon the contractor to make the area safe, and the contractor’s contract with the owner did not displace the owner’s safety-related responsibilities:

Unity, the building’s fire safety and security contractor, should have been granted summary judgment. Even assuming that Unity’s contractual fire safety inspection duties extended to the identification of premises defects such as the broken step involved in plaintiff’s mishap, any failure by Unity to identify that defect would not have constituted the affirmative launching of a force or instrument of harm within the meaning of Espinal … . The same is true of any failure by Unity to call attention to insufficient lighting of the stairway. Further, Unity’s contract did not completely displace the duty of the owner or managing agent to maintain the safety of the premises … . Nor is there any evidence that plaintiff detrimentally relied on Unity to perform its contractual duties. Accordingly, on this record, none of the Espinal conditions for holding a premises contractor liable for an injury to a third party are satisfied with respect to Unity. Diamond v TF Cornerstone Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06473, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: Here none of the Espinal exceptions applied such that the contractor could be held liable for the slip and fall.

Practice Point: Although the “Espinal” issue was not raised below, it could be raised on appeal because it presented a question of law.

December 19, 2023

Evidence, Negligence

IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY TO WARN, BUT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PROXIMATE CAUSE OR NEGLIGENCE; HERE THE IRREGULARLY-SHAPED LANDING AND ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL VIOLATED THE CITY BUILDING CODE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that the condition (an irregularly-shaped landing) is open and obvious does not speak to proximate cause but may be relevant to plaintiff’s comparative negligence (which will not defeat a summary judgment motion).. Here there was evidence the landing and the lack of a handrail violated the NYC Building Code. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Plaintiff … raised a material issue of fact as to whether the irregular shape and dimensions of the landing and the lack of a handrail were the causes of his fall through, inter alia, his testimony that the “shortness” and “angle” of the landing caused his ankle to roll and through his expert engineer’s unrebutted affidavit that the “irregular shape” and “shortness” of the landing, which was in violation of the City of New York Building Code, and the lack of a handrail, proximately caused the fall.

The lower court’s assessment that the landing’s purported dangerous defects were open and obvious has no bearing upon the central, threshold issue of whether there was a causal connection between the defects and the plaintiff’s injury … . Further, it is axiomatic that the open and obvious nature of a hazard pertains to an owner’s duty to warn of such danger but does “not eliminate a claim that the presence of the hazardous condition constituted a violation of the property owner’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . Perry v Sada Three, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06456, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall, the “open and obvious” character of the condition has no bearing to the issue whether the defects caused plaintiff’s injury.

December 14, 2023

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Negligence

IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE A PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF THE PLAINTIFF MOVES TO DISMISS THE DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. The court noted that plaintiff’s comparative negligence in a traffic accident case is usually not considered on a summary judgment motion except where, as here, plaintiff moved to dismiss the defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense:

“A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries” … . A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault in establishing his or her prima facie case against a defendant on the issue of that defendant’s liability … . “[However], the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability where, as here, the plaintiff also seeks dismissal of the defendant’s affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence”… . A motion for]summary judgment “shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party” (CPLR 3212[b] …). On a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party … . Garutti v Kim Co Refrig. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 06354, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: If a plaintiff in a traffic accident case makes a motion for summary judgment which includes a motion to dismiss defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense, the plaintiff’s comparative negligence can properly be considered by the motion court.

December 13, 2023

Municipal Law, Negligence, Vehicle and Traffic Law

ALTHOUGH THE BACKHOE WHICH COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE HAD BEEN USED FOR ROADWORK THAT DAY, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE BACKHOE WAS BEING USED TO TRANSPORT GRAVEL TO THE WORK SITE; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE BACKHOE WAS NOT “ACTIVELY ENGAGED” IN ROADWORK AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND, THEREFORE, THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD FOR LIABILITY IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county employee who rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle with a backhoe was not engaged in road construction work within the meaning of the Vehicle and Traffic Law at the time of the accident and, therefore, was not subject to the higher “reckless disregard” standard for liability. Although the backhoe had been used to repair a road, at the time of the accident the backhoe was transporting gravel to the work site. The Second Department determined transporting gravel was did not meet the definition of being “actively engaged” in construction work:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant driver was not actually engaged in work on a highway at the time of the accident …, because the act of transporting gravel to a highway worksite does not itself constitute construction, repair, maintenance, or similar work on a highway … . When a vehicle travels on a highway to transport equipment or materials, the road itself is not being worked on; instead, the road is being used for its intended purpose of facilitating travel. Moreover, the mere transporting of materials or equipment is different in kind from acts that have been deemed to constitute work “on” a highway, such as clearing or cleaning the road or its shoulder … , or actively assessing the conditions of the road or searching for a reported hazard on the road … . …

… [T]he defendants do not contend that the mere transporting of construction materials on a public road will in every instance constitute being actually engaged in work on a highway. Rather, in advancing their claim, the defendants contend that the defendant driver’s transport of materials fell within the scope of the statute because the defendant driver had been repairing a roadbed on the day of the collision and had not yet completed his work for the day. We disagree. The defendants’ position is inconsistent with the statute’s use of the phrase “actually engaged” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103[b]), as reflected in the plain language of the statute and its interpretation by the courts. Qosaj v Village of Sleepy Hollow, 2023 NY Slip Op 06395, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: A road-construction vehicle involved in an accident will not be subject to the higher “reckless disregard” standard of liability unless the vehicle is “actively engaged” in roadwork at the time of the accident. Transporting gravel to the work site is not considered “active engagement.”