Harris v Seager, 2012 NY Slip Op 02207 (4th Dept. 2012)
“Contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff was not required to establish that defendants had notice of the [*2]allegedly dangerous nature of the threshold and stairway. To establish the notice element of her negligence claim, plaintiff was required to demonstrate that defendants had notice of conditions that she alleged were dangerous, but she was not required to demonstrate that defendants knew that those conditions were dangerous (see generally PJI 2:90; Tanguma v Yakima County, 18 Wash Ct App 555, 563, 569 P2d 1225, 1230, review denied 90 Wash 2d 1001). To the extent that defendants rely on dicta in the decision of the Third Department in Richardson v Rotterdam Sq. Mall (289 AD2d 679, 682) that suggests otherwise, we decline to follow it. We note that, in support of their motion for a directed verdict, defendants did not contend the alleged defects in the property were “trivial as a matter of law.”
As long as you knew it was there, it did not matter that you knew it was dangerous… This is every Plaintiff lawyer’s dream.
12 Responses
It doesn’t sound right but what else are you going to do except fact find and leave it to a jury.
I always assumed that it was knowledge of a dangerous condition. Indeed case law says that. But for those who had sidewalk cases against the city the Big Apple Maps said nothing about the individual markings on the map as to danger. That was part of my cross. “This could be one inch deep … it could be an eighth of an inch deep — we just don’t know … It could be 12 inches long or an eighth of an inch long — we just don’t know.”
So if you require knowledge of a dangerous condition the fact finder must first find if the condition was dangerous. Now you’re in the trial. If the condition is not dangerous knowledge is meaningless — so it moots the whole knowledge of danger issue out.
Obviously if you walk onto one of those city basement entrances on the sidewalk and it collapses I don’t think danger is at issue.
In sum – who says whether its dangerous — the fact finder.
You could have a no danger as a matter of law set of rules. For a while we had Second Department law that sidewalk defects below a quarter inch or so were per se not actionable. Then the exceptions swallowed the rule. “High heel pumps” etc.
“Danger” is too fact sensitive to come up with hard and fast rules although I would try in extreme cases.
cheap ativan online buy lorazepam 1mg – ativan 30 mg
alprazolam mg indian xanax online – xanax side effects newborns
alprazolam without prescription long does generic xanax last – xanax side effects shaking
cheap xanax no prescription long does 2mg xanax effects last – symptoms of xanax overdose
buying xanax online no prescription buy xanax online united states – xanax kava
buy xanax online xanax drug withdrawal symptoms – xanax side effects in teenagers
generic valium valium side effects length – valium to buy online in uk
buy valium cheap online chinese valium sale – valium effects depression
buy ativan ativan addiction detox – lorazepam 1mg flying
buy xanax online xanax withdrawal brain zaps – buy alprazolam online no rx
buy generic valium online no prescription valium 10mg effects – buy valium 5mg