New York Personal Injury Law Blog

Slip & fall accidents cause injury. Here, the plaintiff was injured when her foot got caught in the "pocket" of plastic sheeting during repairs in her studio apartment.

There was a leak in her kitchen coming from the risers. The risers were covered with asbestos which had to be removed prior to fixing the leak. After the asbestos was removed, the plumber fixed the leak and then the holes and wall had to be plastered and painted.

Plaintiff had requested that the foyer and living room could be painted as well. While the repairs were done plaintiff was relocated to another apartment. She did, however, return to her apartment to move things for the painting. While packing books she turned around and her foot got stuck in the in the plastic sheeting on the floor and she fell sustaining her injuries.

The defendants include the asbestos removal company, the air testing company, the plumbing company, painting company with an office in the defendant managing agent's office and the owner of the building.

Defendants claim the plaintiff cannot establish what caused her to fall and that if she could establish that there was a dangerous condition, she could not prove notice of such condition. Each defendant claims that they were not directly responsible for the accident.

In denying summary judgment for any of the parties, the Supreme Court held:

"Here the defendants have established that there was neither actual nor constructive notice. Plaintiff testifies that she traversed the same path safely for twenty minutes before her fall, and there is no evidence of complaints regarding the plastic sheeting. However, defendants have failed to establish, as a matter of law, that they did not cause of [sic] create the alleged defect. Plaintiff has represented facts from which a jury may reasonably infer that defendants were negligent in failing to properly secure the plastic covering to the floor or wall, thereby allowing it to bunch up and create a tripping hazard."

As to the conflicting testimony of each of the defendants, the issue of credibility is for a jury to determine.

Stanton v. DBD Services, Inc., NYLJ, 1/17/12

Ray LaHood, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, recently announced an impressive decrease in the number of distracted driving incidents in Syracuse, New York and Hartford, Connecticut after increased efforts in both cities.

Authorities in both cities stepped up enforcement and increased efforts to get the word out about the dangers of distracted driving.

Distracted driving includes not only cell phone use and texting but the use of other media or radio sources in the vehicle, putting on makeup, eating, drinking or any other activity that takes attention away from driving as a primary purpose behind the wheel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has concluded that strong laws and visible police presence works to lower the use of cell phones and texting while driving.

Slip & fall accidents cause personal injuries.

Plaintiff was seriously injured when she slipped and fell entering the lobby of her apartment building at approximately 9 P.M. which is owned by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). On the day of the accident, the plaintiff was returning from a trip (no pun intended) and it was established that it been raining on and off since 2 P.M. that afternoon. Plaintiff maintains that as she entered the lobby she took one step and on her second step "slipped and fell badly". She landed on her right leg, right knee, and head sustaining serious injuries. She contends that NYCHA never places mats on the floor near the entrance when it rains or snows.

NYCHA moved for summary judgment dismissing the case, arguing that it did not have constructive notice of the conditions and that its custodian checked the lobby at 4 P.M. for any unsafe conditions and had no recollection of any "tracked-in" water on the floor. NYCHA further claims that no one had ever complained about such conditions in the past.

In denying the motion, the Supreme Court noted that it was undisputed that it had been raining for seven hours prior to the accident and five hours after the last inspection of the lobby at 4 P.M. Thus, no one employed by NYCHA mopped the floors for at least five hours before plaintiff slipped and fell.

The court held that plaintiff's statement that the floor was wet and slippery due to a constant rain was sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact. Further, if a jury determines that NYCHA had sufficient notice of the condition, there was a triable issue of fact as to what precautions, if any, were taken to minimize the danger.

In such slip & fall accidents, the defendant has the burden to prove that it did not have sufficient constructive notice of the hazardous condition.

Belik v. NYCHA, NYLJ, 1/9/12

Construction accidents cause injuries to workers.

Plaintiff was injured while using an allegedly defective grinder owned by defendant Beys to cut exposed steel from a concrete floor at Bellevue Hospital. Plaintiff was employed by the construction manager and Beys was the contractor on the project.

Plaintiff sued for violations of Labor Law §§200 and 241(6) and for common law negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and all the cross-motions regarding the Labor Law violations but denied Beys' motion to dismiss the action for common law negligence.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed holding that there was conflicting testimony as to whether "plaintiff selected the grinder from his employer's gang box or was given it by Beys" creating an issue of fact as to whether there was a bailment of the grinder. If there was a bailment, then of further issue would arise as to whether the bailment was for the mutual benefit of Beys and plaintiff's employer which would render Beys liable to plaintiff for "providing him with dangerous equipment, notwithstanding that the defect was patent".

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division stating that "[t]here are unresolved factual issues bearing on whether Beys owed any duty to plaintiff with respect to the condition of the grinder. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the grinder was owned by Beys or Turner [the construction manager], and as to the circumstances under which the plaintiff came to possess the grinder".

This is another example of how, in many construction accidents, there are issues of fact that need to be resolved at trial.

Beazer v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corp. & Beys Contracting, Inc., NYLJ, 12/16/11, 24:5