Articles Posted in Personal Injury

Swimming pool accidents sometimes lead to serious injuries, especially when a pool is not properly maintained, supervised, or labeled with warnings. In New York, legal responsibility for these injuries depends on many factors, including the condition of the pool, the actions of those involved, and the roles of manufacturers, sellers, and property owners. Courts often examine whether the pool had any dangerous defects, whether the injured person was warned about potential hazards, and whether a product or property condition contributed to the accident. This case involved a child who was injured while using an above-ground pool. The court reviewed the evidence to determine whether any party could be held legally responsible for what happened.

Background Facts

In 1982, defendants Paul and Florence Marinaccio purchased a four-foot above-ground swimming pool and a deck kit from defendant Pool Mart, Inc. They installed the pool and deck at their home. Five years later, in 1987, they sold the property—including the installed pool—to defendants Perry and June Hinsken.

In Anderson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02777, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a personal injury lawsuit brought by a security guard who allegedly slipped on ice while working at a United Parcel Service (UPS) facility. The trial court had dismissed her complaint and also dismissed UPS’s third-party claims against the security guard’s employer, Adelis International Security, Inc.

Background Facts

The incident occurred at approximately 1:26 a.m. on January 1, 2011. The plaintiff, Sandra Anderson, was working as a security guard at a UPS facility in Uniondale, New York. She was employed by Adelis, which had a guard services contract with UPS.

In April 2025, the New York Court of Appeals reversed long-standing precedent by allowing a dog bite victim to pursue a negligence claim, not just a strict liability claim. Rebecca Flanders worked as a postal carrier. On December 8, 2018, she delivered a package to the home of Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow. Their mailbox was missing, so Flanders pulled into the driveway and approached the front door. She did not see any warnings about a dog on the property. As she handed the package to Stephen Goodfellow, she heard a dog approaching inside the house. The dog ran through the open door and bit her on the shoulder, causing serious injury that later required multiple surgeries.

The Goodfellows had owned the dog for several years. It weighed about 70 pounds. They had hired a trainer due to behavioral issues, including incidents where the dog dragged Michelle to the ground while on a leash. The trainer noted that the dog got into a fight with another dog but did not observe aggression toward people. According to the Goodfellows, the dog had not previously bitten or attacked anyone.

However, two other postal workers submitted sworn affidavits describing the dog’s behavior during their deliveries. Both workers stated that the dog growled, snarled, and slammed into the windows as if trying to break through. One described it as the most aggressive dog on his route. Neither had reported the behavior formally but believed the homeowners should have seen or heard it.

In Strunk v. Zoltanski, the Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed whether a landlord could be held legally responsible for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog. The case involved an incident where a child was bitten by a dog while on leased property. The court considered whether the landlord’s knowledge of the dog’s behavior at the time of leasing the property created a duty to prevent the injury.

Background Facts

On May 8, 1979, a child was bitten on the face and arm by a German Shepherd while visiting residential property. The dog belonged to a tenant who rented the home from the defendant, Sophie Zoltanski. The child’s mother filed a negligence lawsuit against both the tenant and the landlord. She sought compensation for her son’s injuries and for the loss of his services.

In Bard v. Jahnke, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a property owner could be held liable for injuries caused by a domestic animal—specifically, a dairy bull—under a common-law negligence theory. The court considered whether an owner could be held responsible for failing to warn or restrain an animal that, while not previously aggressive, belonged to a class known to be dangerous.

Background Facts

On September 27, 2001, Larry Bard, a self-employed carpenter, visited Hemlock Valley Farms, a dairy farm in Otsego County. He had been invited by another carpenter, John Timer, to assist with repairs to cow mattresses in the barn’s “low cow district.” Timer had previously worked on various farm tasks and was asked to do this job by one of the farm owners’ sons. Neither Timer nor Bard saw any animals when they walked through the barn that morning.