Articles Posted in Premises Liability

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.

In a legal dispute involving a trip-and-fall incident at Greenwood Lake Middle School, a petitioner sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the school district. The issue centered on whether the delay in filing caused prejudice to the school district and if the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the late notice. The case provides important insights into the standards courts apply in evaluating late notices of claim under Education Law § 3813 and General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).

Background Facts

The petitioner’s claim stemmed from an incident on December 6, 2015, when she attended her grandson’s basketball game at Greenwood Lake Middle School. While exiting the school, she tripped over unsecured floor mats in the vestibule at the main entrance. The fall caused a displaced fracture in her left femur, requiring hip replacement surgery and additional procedures to address the injury.

In cases involving claims against public entities in New York, adhering to procedural requirements is critical. The case involving petitioners who sought to file late notices of claim against Suffolk County highlights these requirements. The petitioners alleged contamination of their drinking water due to chemicals originating from firefighting foam used at a county-owned facility. The central issue before the court was whether the petitioners should be permitted to file late notices of claim against Suffolk County under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).

Background Facts

In July 2016, Suffolk County issued a news release advising property owners near the Gabreski Airport in Southampton that their private wells might be contaminated with toxic chemicals, including PFOS and PFOA. These chemicals were linked to firefighting foam used at the airport, which was owned and operated by the county.

A chain reaction car accident involves a series of collisions between multiple vehicles, typically initiated by an initial impact. In such incidents, the force of the first collision sets off a sequence of subsequent crashes as vehicles in close proximity react to the unfolding chaos. Determining liability in chain reaction accidents can be intricate, often requiring an examination of the specific circumstances surrounding each collision and the establishment of a clear sequence of events. These accidents highlight the importance of maintaining safe distances and attentive driving to mitigate the risk of contributing to or becoming a victim of such collisions.

Rodriguez v. The City of New York, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 35496 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020) involves a motion by defendants CDA Legacy and Luistro Mauricio to vacate prior court orders and deny plaintiffs’ and co-defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The focus is on chain-reaction collisions and the allocation of liability in such incidents.

Background Facts

Product liability cases are complex and require a thorough understanding of the law and the facts surrounding the case. In a premises liability case against a retailer store, the plaintiff must show that the store had a duty to maintain a safe environment for its customers and that it breached that duty by failing to address a known hazard or dangerous condition. The plaintiff must also show that the store’s breach of duty was the proximate cause of their injuries, and that they suffered damages as a result.

In Scheer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., the plaintiff, Susan Scheer, was injured while shopping at Stop & Shop Supermarket when a can of food fell from the shelf and struck her in the head. Scheer filed a lawsuit against Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., alleging that the store was negligent in failing to properly maintain and inspect its shelves.

Factual Background