Practice point: Plaintiff was injured when he fell down a flight of
stairs that led to the restroom area in defendants' restaurant. Plaintiff
testified that his left heel hit the top step whereupon he lost
consciousness and fell. He further testified that when he regained
consciousness, he found himself lying at the bottom of the staircase. On
the basis of that testimony, the Appellate Division found that none of the
stairway's alleged structural or design defects could have been a
proximate cause of the accident.
Student note: Plaintiff alleged that the
staircase was "inadequately lighted and/or not otherwise properly
demarcated/warned about." In denying the motion, the Supreme Court found an
issue of fact as to whether the staircase was totally camouflaged,
creating a defective condition. The Appellate Division found that this was error, inasmuch as the deposition of the restaurant's
general manager is unrefuted insofar as it establishes adequate warning
as a matter of law. Specifically, the general manager testified that at
the top of the staircase there was a yellow sign with an image of a
finger pointing downward which read "bathroom this way" and "watch your
step." The general manager also testified about a red non-slip mat on
the landing, a spotlight at the top of the staircase as well as another
light fixture above the middle of the staircase. Accordingly, defendants established, prima facie, that the staircase was neither
inherently dangerous nor constituted a hidden trap
The affidavit
of plaintiffs' safety expert does not reference the signs or
otherwise state why they were inadequate. Accordingly, plaintiff's mere
assertion that he did not see the signs is insufficient to raise an
issue of fact as to their adequacy.
Case: Sato v. Ippudo, NY Slip Op 01460 (1st Dept. 2013).
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Marital property and maintenance awards.
