Articles Posted in Premises Liability

Published on:

by

New York property owners are responsible for keeping their premises reasonably safe for people who are invited onto the property. When a guest is hurt while using a feature like a dock or pool, the court looks at whether the owner was negligent in maintaining the property or failed to give warnings. In Sess v. McGorry, the court considered whether homeowners were liable after a guest was hurt diving from their dock into shallow water. The decision looked at the property conditions, the injured guest’s actions, and whether the legal defenses of assumption of risk or sole responsibility applied.

Background Facts
On July 30, 2015, at about 1:30 a.m., Tristan Sess was injured when he dove headfirst into Moriches Bay from the dock of the McGorry family’s summer home in Westhampton Beach, New York. Sess was 19 years old and serving in the Navy. He had visited the McGorry home at least once before to socialize and swim after training with other young men interested in joining Navy special forces.

On the night of the injury, Sess and a group of friends had grilled food, spent time in the hot tub, and repeatedly jumped and dove off the dock into the bay. Sess had consumed a few beers earlier in the day. His girlfriend joined the group that evening. Sess warned her about the shallow water. About ten minutes later, he performed a shallow dive and struck his head on the bay floor.

Published on:

by

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.

Published on:

by

In Crampton v. Garnet Health, the Supreme Court of Orange County considered whether summary judgment was appropriate in a case where a patient fell after being discharged from a hospital. The court reviewed whether the hospital had a duty to protect the patient from falling and whether it had met its legal burden to dismiss the claims against it before trial.

Background Facts

The plaintiff, Susan Crampton, visited Garnet Health on March 6, 2021, due to severe abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and discharged the same day. Hospital staff provided discharge instructions and helped her dress. A nurse then walked her toward the exit. As Crampton neared the automatic doors, she began to fall. A hospital employee, Kevin Silva, caught her and lowered her to the ground.

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

When a property owner hires a contractor to maintain its building, it may assume that the contractor, not the owner, will be responsible for any problems caused by the work. However, in some cases, courts have ruled that owners may still be held legally responsible. One example is Backiel v. Citibank, N.A., where an office cleaner slipped on a wet walkway outside an office building owned by Citibank. Although the area was being cleaned by a contractor, the court decided that Citibank could not avoid responsibility by claiming the work had been delegated.

Background Facts

The plaintiff, Wanda Backiel, worked as an office cleaner. She was employed by Cushman & Wakefield, a company hired by Citibank to maintain its office building located at 399 Park Avenue in New York City. On September 24, 1997, Backiel completed an overnight shift and exited the building early in the morning. As she walked across the plaza in front of the lobby, she slipped and fell on a wet surface.

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

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.

Published on:

by

When someone slips and falls in a public or commercial building, questions often arise about who is responsible. In Stroble v. Tes Ave U, LLC, a woman who worked as a medical assistant was injured in a fall inside a medical building in Brooklyn. She filed a lawsuit against the building owner, the hospital leasing the space, and the companies hired to clean the building. The court had to decide whether the building owner or other companies involved were responsible for the condition that caused the fall.

Background Facts

On October 22, 2016, Robin Stroble was working as a medical assistant at a medical office located at 98 Avenue U in Brooklyn. Her employer, non-party Dr. Franco, leased space within the building. At about 11:00 AM, Stroble left the building and saw no water on the floor. She returned five minutes later, again seeing nothing unusual. At approximately 1:30 or 1:45 PM, she and a coworker left for the day. However, Stroble soon returned to the office because she had forgotten her employer’s car keys.

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

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.

Published on:

by

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.

Published on:

by

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.

Published on:

by

In Scurry v New York City Housing Authority, the New York Court of Appeals considered whether the Housing Authority could avoid liability where intruders gained access to buildings through doors with broken locks and committed violent attacks. The key question was whether the targeted nature of the attacks severed the link between NYCHA’s failure to maintain secure entryways and the resulting injuries.

Background Facts

The Court of Appeals decided two related cases. Both involved murders committed by intruders who entered public housing complexes where exterior doors allegedly lacked working locks.

by
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information