Liability for a dog bite off the premises.

Practice point:  Plaintiff sought damages for injuries he allegedly sustained in an attack by a dog being kept by the night watchman at a construction site. Defendant, a general contractor, was constructing buildings on two adjacent properties, and had hired the night watchman and given him permission to keep the dog at the premises. The dog apparently escaped from the premises, and it and another dog attacked plaintiff on a public sidewalk near the site.

Defendant established prima facie that it was unaware of the dog's vicious propensities, through its owner's testimony that he had never received any complaints about the dog and was not aware of any previous incidents involving the dog, and that the dog appeared friendly and well trained when he observed it. However, plaintiff raised an issue of fact through the testimony of a nonparty witness that he had seen the dog bite an electrician working at the construction site approximately one month before the subject incident occurred and was present when defendant's foreman called the owner and told him what had happened.

Student note:  The owner or a party in control of premises may be held liable for injuries resulting from a dog bite that occurred off the premises if it had knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog and had control of the premises and the capability to remove or confine the animal.

Case:  Hall v. United Founders, Ltd., NY Slip Op08530 (1st Dept. 2013).

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue: Statute of frauds.

Liability for an independent contractor's negligence.

Practice point:  As a general rule, a party who engages an independent contractor is not liable for that contractor's negligent acts. There are exceptions, however, one of which implicates the nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe.

Student note:  Whenever the general public is invited into stores, office buildings, and other places of public assembly, the premises' owner is charged with the duty to provide members of the general public with a reasonably safe premises, including a safe means of entry and exit.

Case:  Blatt v. L'Pogee, Inc., NY Slip Op 08582 (2d Dept. 2013).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Liability for a dog bite off the premises.

Happy New Year.

The courts are closed to mark New Year's Day.



Tomorrow's issue: Liability for an independent contractor's negligence.

Struck in the crosswalk, and a motion to renew.

Practice point:  Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment on liability as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that she was crossing the street, within the crosswalk, with a "walk" sign in her favor, when defendants' vehicle, which was making a left turn, struck her. The affidavits from the nonparty eyewitnesses and the police report confirm plaintiff's version of the accident.

Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to comparative negligence. Plaintiff averred that she looked both ways before entering the intersection and continued to look for traffic as she crossed the street, and that she could not have avoided the accident because she only noticed defendants' vehicle, which was moving quickly, a "split second" prior to being struck. Contrary to the assertion of defendant driver, the position of plaintiff's body after impact is not probative as to whether she was walking in the cross-walk prior to being struck.

Student note:  Plaintiff's motion was considered one for renewal, since she submitted a properly notarized affidavit of a nonparty witness, thereby correcting an error in the original papers. The court has discretion to relax the requirement that a motion to renew be based on newly discovered evidence or evidence not previously available, and to grant such a motion in the interest of justice, absent prejudice to the opposing party resulting from any delay.

Case:  Hines v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 08527 (1st Dept. 2013).

Here is the decision.

Thursday's issue: Liability for an independent contractor's negligence.

Discovery sanctions.

Practice point:  As a sanction against a party who refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which should have been disclosed, a court may issue an order, among other things, prohibiting the disobedient party from producing in evidence designated things or items of testimony or striking out pleadings, pursuant to CPLR 3126[2], [3].

Student note:  However, a court may invoke the drastic remedy of striking a pleading only upon a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious.

Case:  Holloway v. Station Bar Corp., NY Slip Op 08408 (2d Dept. 2013).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Struck in the crosswalk, and a motion to renew.

A common-law tort action against a municipality.

Practice point: The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based on his failure to allege in the notice of claim the date or time when his claim against the defendants arose. The plaintiff's failure to so allege with sufficient particularity frustrated the defendants' ability to conduct a meaningful investigation into his claim and to assess its merits.

Student note:  Compliance with the notice of claim requirements set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) is a condition precedent to the commencement of a common-law tort action against a municipality.

Case:  Forster v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 08406 (2d Dept. 2013).

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue: Discovery sanctions.

Workers' Comp.

Practice point:  Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6), which protects employers against lawsuits brought by injured workers, extends to entities which are alter egos of the entity which employs the plaintiff.  A defendant moving for summary judgment under this theory may establish itself, prima facie, as the employer's alter ego by demonstrating that one of the entities controls the other or that the two operate as a single integrated entity.

Student note:  A parent corporation may be deemed to be an employer of an employee of a subsidiary corporation for Workers' Compensation purposes if the subsidiary functions as the alter ego of the parent. However, a mere showing that the entities are related is insufficient where a defendant cannot demonstrate that one of the entities controls the day-to-day operations of the other.

Case:  Batts v. IBEX Constr., LLC, NY Slip Op 08394 (2d Dept. 2013).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: A common-law tort action against a municipality.

Merry Christmas.

The courts are closed to mark Christmas Day.

 

 Tomorrow's issue:  Workers' Comp.

An application for a continuance.

Practice point:  It is an improvident exercise of discretion to deny a continuance where the application is properly made, is not made for the purpose of delay, the evidence is material, and the need for a continuance did not result from the failure to exercise due diligence.

Student note:  An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion.

Case:  Black v. St. Luke's Cornwall Hosp., NY Slip Op 08223 (2d Dept. 2013).

Here is the decision.

Thursday's issue: Workers' Comp.

Apportioning responsibility for marital debt.

Practice point:  Generally, expenses incurred prior to the commencement of an action for a divorce are marital debt to be equally shared by the parties upon an offer of proof that they represent marital expenses.

Student note:  Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution, and the court may consider the entirety of the marital estate in apportioning responsibility for marital debt.

Case:  Augustin v. Bullen, NY Slip Op 08221 (2d Dept. 2013).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: An application for a continuance.

Lights out.

Practice point:   Absent a hazardous condition or other circumstance giving rise to an obligation to provide exterior lighting for a particular area, landowners are generally not required to illuminate their property during all hours of darkness.

Student note:  A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition to prevent foreseeable injuries. The scope of such duty is determined in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.

Case:  Assefa v. Bam, NY Slip Op 08220 (2d Dept. 2013).

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue: Apportioning responsibility for marital debt.