New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
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.
Anderson allegedly slipped and fell on a patch of ice while performing her duties. A snowstorm had impacted the area prior to the incident, and the most recent snow removal efforts at the facility had occurred on December 29, 2010—two days before the accident. No inspections or further snow removal were documented between that date and the time Anderson slipped.
In December 2013, Anderson filed a personal injury lawsuit against UPS. In response, UPS filed a third-party action against Adelis seeking contractual indemnification and defense based on the guard services contract.
Question Before the Court
The court was asked to decide whether UPS was entitled to summary judgment dismissing Anderson’s complaint and whether Adelis was entitled to summary judgment dismissing UPS’s third-party complaint. Specifically, the court reviewed whether UPS had actual or constructive notice of the icy condition and whether Adelis had a contractual duty to indemnify and defend UPS.
Court’s Decision
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order. It held that the trial court should not have dismissed Anderson’s complaint or the third-party complaint. The court found that UPS had not met its burden of showing that it lacked constructive notice of the ice. The court also found that neither UPS nor Adelis had demonstrated an entitlement to summary judgment on the indemnification issue.
The court reversed the dismissal of Anderson’s complaint and reinstated UPS’s third-party complaint against Adelis. It affirmed the lower court’s denial of UPS’s motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint but reversed the grant of Adelis’s cross-motion for dismissal of the same.
Discussion
In slip-and-fall cases, a property owner must show that it did not create the hazardous condition and that it lacked actual or constructive notice. Constructive notice requires that the condition be visible and exist for a long enough period that it could have been discovered and corrected.
UPS submitted evidence that snow removal was completed on December 29, 2010, and that no ice was present at that time. However, it did not present any evidence showing inspections or snow removal in the two days leading up to Anderson’s fall on January 1, 2011. This failure left open the possibility that ice had formed during that period and remained undetected. As a result, the court concluded that UPS had not shown it lacked constructive notice.
UPS’s motion was denied on this ground, and the court ruled that it did not need to consider the plaintiff’s opposition papers, as UPS had not made a sufficient showing in the first place.
On the issue of contractual indemnification, the court noted that such an obligation depends on the specific language of the contract. A party seeking indemnification must also show that it was not negligent. UPS could not meet this burden because it had not yet been absolved of liability in the main action. Similarly, Adelis had not shown that UPS was solely responsible for the accident.
The court pointed out that neither party had submitted sufficient evidence to resolve the indemnification issue as a matter of law. As a result, both UPS’s motion for indemnification and Adelis’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint were denied.
Conclusion
This decision highlights the importance of inspection records and snow removal documentation in premises liability cases. Property owners must be prepared to show they took reasonable steps to discover and remedy hazardous conditions. It also illustrates that indemnification clauses do not automatically relieve parties of liability unless they can prove they were free from negligence.