A property owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, which may include the duty to warn of a dangerous condition. However, there is no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. In moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case, the defendant has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the hazardous condition which caused the plaintiff's injury nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition, or, alternatively, that the condition was both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The issue of whether a condition is open and obvious and not inherently dangerous is case-specific, and usually is a question of fact for a jury. Whether a condition is open and obvious is relevant to a plaintiff's comparative fault, but does not negate liability. Similarly, whether a defendant has provided warnings of a dangerous condition is relevant to a plaintiff's comparative fault, but does not negate liability.
Naftaliyeva v. Shoprite of Avenue I, NY Slip Op 06207 (2d Dep't December 11, 2024)
