There are multiple different ways that you can succeed in a premises liability case. You can show that your slip and fall or trip and fall was a result of improper maintenance, such as an unstable step on a stairway or a pothole in a parking lot. You can also win a premises liability case if you can show that the thing that caused your injuries was unsafe in terms of its design. Whatever the basis of your premises liability case, a knowledgeable New York City premises liability attorney can provide you with essential benefits along every step of the litigation process in your injury case.
The injured person in a recent premises liability case was a delivery person who worked for a company that provided linens for hospitals. The delivery worker, Semen G., alleged that he was pushing a four-wheeled cart full of floor mats up a ramp in the loading dock area of a hospital in Manhattan when he was injured.
The delivery person sued for his injuries. The central thrust of his premises liability case was that the ramp was unreasonably dangerous. It was, according to the man’s complaint, “improperly sloped—i.e., it was too steep, high, and long.” This alleged improper design meant that, for workers doing the kind of work that Semen G. did, the ramp exposed them to “forces greater and longer in duration than what are customary for ramps used for deliveries.”
According to the Appellate Division, he was entitled to go forward with his case and have a trial. The law allows property owners to obtain favorable results through summary judgment (meaning that the judge decides the case on the pleadings before trial) if they can prove certain things to the court. The property owner (or other person or entity responsible for the property) has to be able to establish that it didn’t create the alleged hazard. The defendant must also persuade the court that it neither knew about the hazard (called “actual knowledge”) nor reasonably should have known about the problem (called “constructive knowledge”).
New York City has relevant building code sections to cover ramps and their slopes and rises. The hospital in this case did not demonstrate that the ramp in question was compliant with the relevant New York City building code sections (BC 1010.2 and 1010.4). The hospital’s document that it filed with the court also did not establish that it “did not have notice of the alleged condition.”
There are additional ways that a property owner can succeed. If the property owner can establish that the alleged hazard was an “open and obvious condition and not inherently dangerous,” it can succeed. In this case, though, the hospital had not provided the court with the necessary proof to demonstrate that the ramp’s allegedly hazardous state was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.
The diligent Queens premises liability attorneys at Newman, Anzalone & Newman have many years of experience representing injured people and pursuing favorable results. To schedule a free consultation with one of our qualified attorneys, contact us toll-free at 877-754-3099 or through our website.
More Blog Posts:
New York Cleaning Worker’s Injury Case Goes Forward After Homeowners Fail to Show Hazard was ‘Open and Obvious’, New York Personal Injury Lawyers Blog, Aug. 29, 2017
NY Appellate Division Reinstates Jury Verdict in Favor of Subway User who Fell on Unlit Staircase, New York Personal Injury Lawyers Blog, June 28, 2017