Personal Injury Update April – June 2022 – Part 2 of 3

Personal Injury Update April – June 2022 – Part 2 of 3

(Nontransitional) Prerecorded Audio (On Demand/Recorded-Audio)

Appropriate for Experienced Attorneys

Areas of Professional Practice: 3.5 CLE Credit Hours

Note: Before Relying On Any Decision Summarized on this Site, Including the Summaries in the CLE Written Materials, Make Sure It Remains Good Law Using the Method You Trust for that Purpose. See the Discussion Under “Shepardize” in the “How to Use the New York Appellate Digest” Section on the Home Page.

This course organizes summaries of decisions by the New York State appellate courts (Appellate Division and Court of Appeals) released between April 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022 which address issues in “Personal Injury,” including Negligence, Medical Malpractice, Products Liability, Labor Law-Construction Law and Workers’ Compensation.

The “Personal Injury” decision-summaries posted weekly on the New York Appellate Digest website are organized in monthly Reversal Reports which are accessed in the “Update Service.” The monthly Reversal Reports comprise the written materials for these monthly CLE courses. The course consists of three parts, each with its own podcast page. Part 1 is based on the Personal Injury Reversal Report for April, 2022; Part 2 is based on the Reversal Report for May, 2022; and Part 3 is based on the Reversal Report for June 2022.

As you listen to the course, you will hear verification codes. After finishing Part 3 of the course, print and fill out the “Attorney Affirmation,” including the verification codes, your name, your signature, and the date you completed the course. Please also fill out the attached “Evaluation Survey” (the CLE Board requires that I collect and preserve the Evaluation Surveys). The links to the “Attorney Affirmation” and “Evaluation Survey” are on the podcast page for Part 3 of this course. Scan the “Attorney Affirmation” and the “Evaluation Survey” and email them as attachments to me, Bruce Freeman, at NewYorkAppellateDigest@gmail.com. I will email to you the completed “New York CLE Certificate of Attendance,” as an attachment, awarding you credit for the 3.5 credit-hour course. Or, if you wish to send and receive hard copies by regular mail, send the “Attorney Affirmation” and “Evaluation Survey” to New York Appellate Digest, LLC, 126 Colonial Village Road, Rochester, New York 14625 and make sure to include your return address.

Click on the links below for the written material for Part 2 of this course: Personal Injury Reversal Report May, 2022.

The media player for this course is at the bottom of the page.

Links to the Attorney Affirmation and Evaluation Form are on the podcast page for Part 3 of this course.

Personal Injury Reversal Report May 2022

Topics Covered in the “Personal Injury Reversal Report May 2022” (Part 2 of this Course) Are Described Below; The Numbers are the Page Numbers in the Reversal Report 

MAY 2022 REVERSAL REPORT

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, FALL FROM BATHTUB RIM. 4

PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE EDGE OF A BATHTUB WHEN HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL A SHOWER-CURTAIN ROD; THE EDGE OF THE TUB WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). 4

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SUBCONTRACTOR LIABILITY. 5

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE SCAFFOLDING SYSTEM CONSTRUCTED BY SWING, A SUBCONTRATOR, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST SWING SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; SWING WAS NOT A CONTRACTOR OR OWNER, OR A CONTRACTOR’S OR OWNER’S STATUTORY AGENT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTES (FIRST DEPT). 5

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CONTRACT LAW, INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE. 6

THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE STATED THAT THE CONTRACTOR FOR WHOM THE INJURED PLAINTIFF WORKED WOULD HOLD THE “OWNER’S AGENT” HARMLESS AND DID NOT MENTION THE PROPERTY OWNER; THE CONTRACT MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED; THE PROPERTY OWNER’S INDEMNIFICATION ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). 6

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW. 7

PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A PIPE DOWN A PLYWOOD RAMP IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF IT (FIRST DEPT). 7

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW. 8

PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN AN OPEN, UNGUARDED MANHOLE AS HE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OVER IT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROTECTIVE RAILING AROUND THE MANHOLE (FIRST DEPT). 8

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION. 9

PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY; PLAINTIFF WAS COLLATERALY ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND COGNITIVE DISORDER BY THE RULING IN HIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE (FIRST DEPT). 9

NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, CAUSE OF FALL. 10

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 10

NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE. 11

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BECAUSE THEY OFFERED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT). 11

NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE. 12

DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED; THERFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT). 12

NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, CONTRACTOR LIABILTY. 13

A CONTRACTOR WHICH CREATES A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK MAY BE LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT). 13

NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE. 14

RARE SLIP AND FALL WON BY THE DEFENDANT AT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEMONSTRATING A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE BOX WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL (FIRST DEPT). 14

NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS, EXPERT OPINION. 15

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED THAT THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (A PROPERTY OWNER WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR A SNOW AND ICE CONDITION UNTIL A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE PRECIPITATION HAS STOPPED); THE BURDEN THEN SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S EFFORT TO REMOVE SNOW HOURS BEFORE THE FALL CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; TO MEET THAT BURDEN AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT WAS NOT, SUBMITTED (FIRST DEPT). 15

NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ROADWAY DESIGN. 16

THE NEGLIGENT ROADWAY DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE ABSENCE OF TURNOUTS FOR DISABLED VEHICLES CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). 16

NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 17

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP (NJT) BUS IN NEW YORK; NJT IS AN ARM OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE APPLIES; HOWEVER, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW PLANTIFF CANNOT SUE IN NEW JERSEY BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT ARISE THERE; APPLYING THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE AS AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, PLAINTIFF’S NEW YORK LAWSUIT WAS ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD (FIRST DEPT). 17

NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCICENTS, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, GRAVES AMENDMENT, LIABILITY OF LESSOR. 18

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE OWNER OF A LEASED VEHICLE FROM LIABILITY FOR A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT OWNER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 18

NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW. 19

DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A LEFT TURN IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141; PLANTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). 19

NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. 20

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK IN THE ON-COMING LANE WHILE ATTEMPTING A LEFT TURN IN AN INTERSECTION, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT). 20

NEGLIGENT-HIRING, DOCTOR EMPLOYED BY HOSPITAL, PATIENT ASSAULTS. 22

PLAINTIFF IN THIS NEGLIGENT-HIRING ACTION AGAINST THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED A DOCTOR WHO ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER AND OTHER PATIENTS SOUGHT DISCOVERY; THE IDENTITIES OF THE OTHER ASSAULTED PATIENTS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE DOCTOR-PATIENT PRIVILEGE; PARTY STATEMENTS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE QUALITY ASSURANCE PRIVILEGE; AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO THE NAMES OF THE DOCTOR’S COWORKERS (FIRST DEPT). 22

PRODUCTS LIABILITY, ROUTER, SEVERED THUMB. 23

IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION WHERE A ROUTER SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S THUMB, THE FAILURE-TO-WARN CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE MANUAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLANTIFF NEVER READ IT; THE GENERALIZED FAILURE-TO-WARN CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DISAGREEING WITH THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, THE DESIGN-DEFECT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE LACK OF AN INTERLOCK DEVICE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT). 23

CLICK HERE TO GO TO PART 3 OF THE COURSE