Proving Liability When a Bus Stops Short

            Most New Yorkers are accustom to the violent stops and starts of buses driving on New York City streets.  However, few are aware of the level of proof required to win a lawsuit when someone is injured when a stopping bus throws a passenger to the floor.  These cases are made more difficult by the fact that while the injured person is being taken to the hospital the New York City Transit Authority doing everything possible to make victory at trial impossible.  First, the police are rarely called – instead a NYCTA dispatcher is called to the scene to investigate the accident (no one knows how this is permitted).  Second, the contact information of witnesses “favorable” to the injured person is rarely obtained.  Imagine, while you are writhing in pain n route to the hospital, the NYCTA (a public authority) is trying to sanitize the case to prevent you from obtaining a recovery in Court.  However, the Courts – and jurors – have ruled in favor of plaintiffs where we can show that the jerking of the bus went beyond the normal stops and starts of City traffic.

            In Urquhart v. NYCTA, 85 NY2d 828, 830, 623 N.Y.S.2d 838 (1995) the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s testimony that the bus was traveling at a high rate of speed followed by a sudden stop that caused him to fall was sufficient to support a jury verdict.  The Court held that the plaintiff’s evidence is:

more that a mere characterization of the stop.  It provided objective evidence of the force of the stop sufficient to establish an inference that the stop was extraordinary and violent, of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel and, therefore, attributable to the negligence of defendant.

Id at 830.  The First Department has examined the issues raised in the course of this trial multiple times within the last few years.  In Crane v. NYCTA, 60 A.D.3d 467; 874 N.Y.S.2d 112 (1^st Dept. 2009) when the bus stopped suddenly causing her to fall.  The Court affirmed an award of summary judgment to plaintiff based solely on plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the bus’ “sudden stop caused a jerk or lurch that was ‘unusual and violent.’"  In Grant v. NYCTA, 61 A.D.3d 422; 877 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1^st Dept. 2009), the Court reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the case based solely on plaintiff’s testimony that the bus was moving very quickly then stopped so suddenly that he and another passenger fell to the floor.  The Court held that “such testimony constitutes ‘objective evidence that the force of the stop sufficient to establish an inference that the stop was extraordinary and violent, of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel and, therefore, attributable to the negligence of defendant.’ 

            In the case of Saracino v. NYCTA (N.Y. Sup Index #104263/07), we successfully argued that the plaintiff’s testimony established liability.  In that case the plaintiff testified that the bus accelerated suddenly and at such a speed that she was being propelled to the rear of the bus and had to hold on to the tops of the seats to avoid falling.  Then, without warning, the bus driver slammed on the brakes causing her to lose her footing and fall towards the front of the bus and crash into a seat.  In addition, we relied on the medical testimony of her treating surgeon to explain to the jury that the amount of force required to sustain her injuries was consistent with a serious impact and not from merely falling from a standing position. 

Co-op Apartment Liability for Construction Accidents

            The New York State Labor Law provides protection for many types of accidents involving construction, renovation and demolition work activities.  Generally speaking, the owner of the premises and the general contractor are legally responsible for maintaining a safe work site and are held responsible because they are in the best position to ensure worker safety (See, New York State Labor Law §§200, 241(6) and 240(1)).  In New York City, in particular, where many of the private residential buildings are owned as cooperative apartments (or co-ops) the question of who is legally responsible for construction accidents is clear – but perhaps not easily understood.  The individual unit “owner” is generally protected by the single family homeowner exception to the Labor Law.  However, the building owner can be held liable – even for work being done solely inside an individual apartment.

            In Coleman v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 821, 666 N.Y.S.2d 553, 689 N.E.2d 523 (1997) the Court of Appeals examined the liability of a cooperative corporation and held that:

the owner of the property argued that it was not liable because it leased the property to a contractor who performed the work leading to the injury and did not itself contract for or benefit from the construction involved.  We disagreed, stating that "[l]iability rests upon the fact of ownership and whether Eastern had contracted for the work or benefitted from it are legally irrelevant."  (Supra, at 560, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912.)  Relying on our earlier decision in Celestine v. City of New York, 59 N.Y.2d 938, 466 N.Y.S.2d 319, 453 N.E.2d 548, affg. 86 A.D.2d 592, 446 N.Y.S.2d 131, we articulated the bright line rule that "when the Legislature imposed the duties of section 240(1) on '[a]ll * * * owners' it intended to include owners in fee even though the property might be leased to another" (Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, supra, 82 N.Y.2d, at 560, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912).

More recently, in Pineda v. 79 Barrow Street Owners Corp., 297 A.D.2d 634, 636, 747 N.Y.S.2d 236, 239 (2d Dept. 2002) where the plaintiff fell from a ladder while painting the living room of an individual shareholder without the prior consent or notice to the cooperative building owner, the Second Department held that, “as the fee owner and the owner’s agent, the defendants are absolutely liable under the Labor Law . . .”  The issue of a cooperative corporation's liability under Labor Law §241(6) was also addressed in DeNota v. 45 East 85th Street Corp., 163 Misc.2d 734, 622 N.Y.S.2d 192 (S.Ct. N.Y. Co. 1995).  In DeNota the plaintiff was cutting wood with a power saw in an apartment unit at the cooperative building owned and controlled by the defendants.  The cooperative corporation alleged that it should not be liable since it did not contract for the renovation work, which was done on behalf of the individual apartment owner.  The Court rejected this argument and denied the cooperative corporation's motion for summary judgment on this ground, explaining that (622 N.Y.S.2d at 193):

However, the statutory purpose of affording protection to workers employed in construction, excavation or demolition is to provide a recourse to the workers regardless of the absence of control, supervision or direction of the work [cites omitted].  The owner is in the position to ensure that adequate protection is provided and the statutory liability provides the motive [cases omitted].

            The Courts are merely following the centuries old definition of “owner” in coming to this conclusion.  While most people believe that they “own” a co-op apartment, in reality the apartment is owned by the cooperative corporation that owns the entire building.  The individual merely owns shares in the co-op corporation that entitles them to occupy a particular unit in the building.  Therefore, as the true “owner” of the work site the coop corporation can be held responsible for construction accidents. 

Liability for Providing Alcohol

Bars, restaurants and any person providing alcohol can be held responsible for plaintiff’s injuries caused by another patron for the unlawful sale of alcohol when he was visibly intoxicated.  The injuries can be caused by a car accident, assault or even falling on the plaintiff.

General Obligations Law §11-101 (the "Dram Shop Act") states:

                Compensation for injury caused by the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor:

                                    1. Any person who shall be injured in person, property, means of support, or otherwise by any intoxicated person, or by reason of the intoxication of any person, whether resulting in his death or not, shall have a right of action against any person who shall, by unlawful selling to or unlawfully assisting in procuring liquor for such intoxicated person, have caused or contributed to such intoxication; and in any such action such person shall have a right to recover actual and exemplary damages.

In McGovern v. 4299 Katonah Inc., 5 A.D2d 239, 773 N.Y.S.2d (1^st Dept. 2004), the plaintiff was injured when an allegedly intoxicated patron fell on top of her.  The Court held that the defendant must “negate the possibility that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person” to be successful on a motion to dismiss a claim brought under the Dram Shop Act.  The Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff offered evidence that one hour before the incident the other patron was seen drinking in the bar and stumbling around. 

It is well settled that the issue of whether the defendant provided alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron is for a jury to determine at the time of trial.  In Zambrano v. Bobola, 2008 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 3730, 239 N.Y.L.J. 119 (NY County, 2008), the Court held that the defendant must eliminate material issues of fact to prevail on a motion to dismiss.  “A claim under the Dram Shop Act may be established through circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of eyewitnesses.  It is for the jury to decide the issue of fact whether [the defendant] continued to serve drinks to a visibly intoxicated patron.” 

So remember, you may be held responsible for a car accident, assault or other drunken antics of your guests.

Table Saw Accidents are Preventable

            New York State provides protection for construction workers designed to force property owners and general contractors to require that job sites comply with basic safety standards.  For example, when using a table saw (a common construction site power tool) 12 NYCRR §23-1.12(2) specifically provides that every table saw “shall be equipped with a guard which covers the saw blade to such an extent as will prevent contact with the teeth.”  The provision further requires that “Every such saw shall be equipped with a cut-off switch within easy reach of the operator without leaving the operating position.” See, Jacobus v. Black & Decker (US) Inc., 8 A.D.3d 443, 778 N.Y.S.2d 300 (2d Dept. 2004).  A construction worker injured by an unguarded table saw blade can bring a lawsuit to recover for injuries sustained, pain and suffering, lost earnings and medical expenses.

            The problem is that a walk through most construction sites will reveal that table saw guards are rarely ever used (or even on the job site) with table saws.  The combination of cluttered, uneven work sites and the pressures of completing the job on time makes the unguarded table saw an accident waiting to happen.  The way the accident happens is simple and complex at the same time.  The table saw blade guard has a few main functions – the obvious one being the physical blade cover.  In addition, the guard assembly also helps prevent a “kick back” – where the wood binds on the spinning blade and is unexpectedly propelled back towards the operator.  This can occur because the natural tendency of wood when it is partially cut is to pinch together (grabbing the spinning blade).  The metal support that holds the guard in place helps prevent the wood from pinching the blade.  In addition, the guards are equipped with anti-kickback fingers.  These work like check valves that only allow the wood to travel in one direction – if the wood tries to come backward the device stops the wood.  These guards have been around for almost 100 years – relatively unchanged from the original design.

            In theory, this safety device sounds perfect and one would wonder why it is not universally used in the field.  However, most workers have never even seen the guard because the employers never install them on the table saws in the first place.  Employers find them to be clumsy and slow down the work.  Another option would be to use table saws equipped with Saw Stop technology.  This relatively recent invention uses electronic sensors to determine if the object touching the blade is wood or flesh then stops the spinning blade in a micro-second.  Now the worker would certainly get scared and probably receive some superficial injury – however it would be nothing compared with the life altering amputations that occur when the blade keeps spinning.  Unfortunately, table saws equipped with this technology are more expensive than traditional table saws. 

            Since the worker has no real ability to complain about unsafe work sites and equipment (for fear of losing the job) we will continue to see productive workers’ hands mangled by saw blades.  Most construction workers who are missing part of a hand will tell you that the ability to bring a lawsuit (with no guarantee of success) does not make up for the suffering they endure every day.

Homeowner Liability for Snow/Ice Removal

Even as the weather gets warm and this past winter's snow storms become a distant memory, we take a look at the individual homeowner's liability for snow/ice removal in New York City. Under New York City Administrative Code Section 7-210 the owner of the property adjacent to the sidewalk is responsible for dangerous/hazardous conditions on the sidewalk, except where the property is a 1-2 family residential home.  The public policy rationale is that we do not want to hold the owner of the family home responsible for maintaining the public sidewalk in a safe condition. 

However, where the homeowner makes the effort to remove snow and ice he/she must do so properly and can be held liable for negligent snow/ice removal.  In  Robles v. City of New York, 56 A.D.3d 647; 868 N.Y.S.2d 114 (2d. Dept. 2008) the Court reaffirmed that “in the absence of statute or ordinance, an owner or lessee of property abutting a public sidewalk may be held liable where it undertook snow removal efforts which made the naturally occurring condition more hazardous.”  More recently, in San Marco v. Village of Mount Kisco, 16 N.Y.3d 111 (2010), the plaintiff claimed he slipped on ice resulting from melting and refreezing of snow in a Village parking lot.  The Court of Appeals denied the motion for summary judgment; holding that “primarily, a jury must decide whether San Marco fell on ice created by the Village’s snow clearance operation.”

Although it does not make any sense to a logical person, if you bundle up to brave the elements and actually try to do the right thing you may end up being held liable.  However, if you do nothing and let your neighbors struggle past your house you may be able to avoid responsibility if they get injured.  Why we essentially “reward” the homeowner who does nothing is beyond me. 

www.monaco-law.com