Articles Posted in Uncategorized

The defendants of this case had filed for a summary judgment requesting dismissal for the personal injury complaint of the plaintiffs. The defendants have further claimed that the plaintiffs had failed in establishing that the alleged cause of their trip and fall was a defect on the premises. The defendants also contested that the reason for the plaintiffs’ fall was a trivial matter.

According to the plaintiff, she sustained personal injuries because she tripped and fell on the sidewalk just outside of the popular fast food chain. The restaurant and the physical property were owned by the defendant.

The plaintiff said in her testimony that the weather conditions on the day of the accident were cold. She went on to say that there was no snowfall or ice on the ground. The plaintiff is a regular user of the sidewalk in question since she used that route when getting to and back from her job. According to the plaintiff, there was not much room to move around on the sidewalk. She couldn’t have avoided the accident that day. She allegedly tripped on the uneven part of the sidewalk fronting the defendant’s premises. She also added the sidewalk was not crowded during that time.

Continue reading

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for sustaining personal injury due to a trip and fall accident. The plaintiff tripped and fell while walking on the sidewalk near the premises of the defendant. According to the complaint, plaintiff accuses the defendant of negligence for allowing the defect to remain on the sidewalk. The plaintiff alleges that the sidewalk has an uneven portion thus making it unsafe for anyone who passes by.

The plaintiff was a taxi driver who tripped on the alleged defective sidewalk and fractured his arm. The defendants were the owners of the building. Therefore, they also own the sidewalk within the building premises.

According to the statement of the plaintiff, he was just walking along the sidewalk near the building when he tripped on an uneven part of the sidewalk and fell on the ground. The plaintiff cited the tenants of the building as the negligent parties since they did not do anything to the sidewalk even though it had a defect.

Continue reading

A lawyer reported a case involving a trip and fall that was contested by the owner of the premises where the accident occurred. The owner had asked the trial court to dismiss the case because of the minor nature of the alleged defect that allegedly caused an injury to a dog walker. According to the injured party, or plaintiff, she had been out walking her dog in the morning hours on the sidewalk in front of an apartment complex when her dog suddenly pulled her into a hole on the sidewalk, which she described as shoe print sized.

The woman’s injuries consisted of a left foot ligament sprain, a broken bone in her left foot, an ankle sprain, and the development of RSD, which is permanent. She claimed the injury has made her a surgical candidate. She did not suffer a head injury or brain injury.

In her complaint, the woman alleged the building owner, who is responsible for the sidewalk in front of the complex, failed to adequately maintain the sidewalk, that he had had sufficient notice of the defect or hole in the sidewalk, and that he failed to repair it.

Continue reading

A man working as a widow-installer was on a jobsite at #67 Wall Street on January 11, 2006. He carried some glass windows and rested them against a column while preparing to install them. As he turned, he stepped on a chunk of dark concrete which seemed to have fallen from the ceiling. The window installer stepped with the arch of his right foot on the jagged chunk of concrete. The chunk of concrete wobbled under his weight. The window-installer lost his balance and he fell. The chunk of concrete was part of an accumulated pile of debris on the jobsite floor that had not been cleaned up. The window installer’s crew had been working on that same building floor for about a month but the section of the building floor they were working on (on that day of his accident) was a different section of the building floor.

The jobsite was a building that was being renovated. It was owned by a corporation which hired a general contractor on December 1, 2004 to oversee the progress of the construction project in behalf of the owner of the building. The general contractor hired another corporation as a construction manager. This construction manager hired a window-making corporation as a contractor to manufacture for and install windows in the building. This corporation which makes windows hired a sub-contractor, a window-installing corporation to install the windows. The injured window-installer was an employee of the window-installing corporation.

The injured window installer filed a suit in damages under Labor Law and under common law negligence against the following: the owner of the building, the general contractor, the construction manager, the window maker, and his own employer, the window installing company. He claims damages from all of them.

Continue reading

A female stenographer who worked for a transcribing company in New York City was ordered by her employer to travel to Toronto, Canada to take down the minutes of depositions there. She went to Toronto with several employees. They stayed there for a few days and were going home to New York to type up the depositions before the New Year holiday on December 30, 1980. As the female stenographer was going to take a shower before leaving for the airport to board her return to New York City, she slipped and fell while stepping into the bathtub to take her shower.

She brought suit for compensation for the injury she sustained. The Workers’ Compensation law judge determined that the injury she sustained arose out of and in the course of her employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this finding. The Board stated further that the stenographer would not have gone to Toronto were she not required to travel there on the business of her employer. She was directed to stay there for a length of time and that her status as employee continued while she was in Toronto. Her employer benefited from her work during her stay in Toronto and in fact, the employer contributed to her injury when he required her presence in Toronto where the accident took place.

The Appellate Division reversed the Workers’ Compensation Board finding and held that taking a shower is a purely personal act. Even if the employee were on a business trip out-of-town at the instance of her employer, she sustained the injury while doing a purely personal act which is not compensable.

Continue reading

A lady was walking along the sidewalk on 3998 Victory Boulevard. The sidewalk had a covered manhole on it and there was a crack leading from the manhole cover measuring about two to four inches long. The crack on the pavement raised a portion of the sidewalk around two inches above the manhole cover. This portion of the sidewalk abuts the driveway of a couple’s house and the sidewalk is located right in front of the house of the couple. In fact, there is evidence presented that in order for the couple to get to and from their house they will have to pass the portion of the sidewalk where the manhole is located.

As the lady was passing in front of the couple’s house, she tripped and fell because of that crack in the sidewalk and because of the raised portion of the pavement around the covered manhole. She sued the City of New York and the couple for damages arising from negligence.

The City of New York appeared during the pre-trial to ask the court to be dropped as defendant in the damage suit as the Administrative Code of New York City provides that the city shall not be liable for any personal injury that was caused by the failure to maintain sidewalks that traverse a property which is occupied by the owner and used exclusively for residential purposes. The trial court granted the motion of the City of New York.

Continue reading

One hundred and eighty sixth grade students of a public school in Bellmore, New York went on a field trip. They were accompanied by 8 classroom teachers, parent chaperones and teaching assistants. They visited the Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York City.

The children were all divided into small groups of five or six students, each group with a responsible adult as leader. A girl and a boy were assigned to a small group assigned to a parent. Around 2pm, as they were nearing the end of the tour of the museum, the parent asked the kids to file out of the scuba exhibit and to walk into the next exhibit.

The children filed out but the parent stayed behind in the scuba exhibit. According to the girl, as they had finished the tour of the museum and were leaving the building, they saw an amusement ride and so that kids started running toward the amusement ride. The girl was walking and was not running but a boy came running from behind her and pushed her out of the way. As a result of being pushed, the girl tripped over the molding of an exhibit doorway and fell. She tried to break her fall with her hand and she broke her wrist. She had to undergo corrective surgery to mend the broken bone.

Continue reading

A woman went to a gourmet deli. She was looking at the food items in the refrigerated display cases. She saw that near the end of the display cases, there was a stack of grocery baskets. She picked her way and walked around the stack of grocery baskets but as she was walking around them, her foot got caught underneath the metal stand that held the grocery baskets. Getting her foot caught under metal stand made her trip and fall.

She filed a suit in damages against the deli owner. She claimed in her deposition that while she saw the stack of grocery baskets as soon as she saw the shop, she never noticed that the stack of baskets was resting on a raised metal platform that held the baskets in place. The metal platform was raised about two inches from the floor and it was under the metal platform where her foot got caught.

The deli owner filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the complaint. The deli owner insists that the platform on which the baskets were stacked was a readily observable hazard and not an inherently dangerous condition.

Continue reading

A corporation owned property in Queens. Sometime in April 23, 2004, a man had a trip and fall while on the premises of the property. The man who tripped and fell hired a lawyer who sent the corporation a letter asking the corporation to indemnify his client for the injury the man sustained as a result of the trip and fall.

The corporation was insured and the insurer had contracted to indemnify the corporation for any claims resulting from negligence due to trips and falls on his property in Queens. The lawsuit could have been avoided if the corporation had given timely notice to his insurance company that a claim against him had been filed.

The lawyer sent the corporation another notice asking him to give them the name of the insurance company of the corporation but, again, the corporation simply ignored the request of the injured man and his lawyer.

Continue reading

A painter was hired to paint the walls of a building that was being renovated. The owner of the building, RAR, leased office spaces to BDG in the building. BDG hired a construction company to renovate the office space. The construction company hired VM to perform demolition and carpentry work: they removed partitions and constructed new partitions. The construction company also hired VPC to paint the leased space after the demolition of the old partitions. The injured painted was an employee of VPC, the painting contractor hired by the construction company.

The painter was using a roller brush to paint the wall. He dipped his roller in a paint bucket which was on the floor. He moved the bucket along the floor using his left foot, gently pushing the bucket along as he painted. When he moved the bucket with his foot, the bucket suddenly stopped as it got caught on a shot pin that was still protruding from the floor. The sudden stop of the bucket caused the painter to twist his knee. He slipped and fell to the floor and sustained injury.

The shot pin is a nail that is used to secure a partition or wall. It should have been removed after the wall partitions were removed. The painter testified on deposition that he did not know who removed the wall or who failed to remove the shot pin. He admitted that he has not seen the shot pin before he slipped and fell because of it. He did not remove the shot pin after falling because of it. He also testified that he kept on painting after the incident.

Continue reading