Claims arising from slip-and-fall incidents in residential and institutional settings often turn on a critical question: whether the property owner knew, or should have known, of a hazardous condition. A recent decision from a New York court demonstrates the evidentiary burdens placed on both sides and highlights how constructive notice, rather than actual notice, often becomes the decisive factor. If you were hurt in a slip and fall accident, you should consider consulting a Syracuse premises liability attorney to better understand how New York law applies to your situation.
Factual and Procedural Background
It is reported that the plaintiff, a university student residing in on-campus housing, slipped and fell on an interior stairwell in her dormitory. She asserted that she encountered an accumulation of water while descending the stairs, causing her to lose her footing and sustain injuries. Weather conditions that day included snow, and the plaintiff described feeling a slippery substance beneath her feet just before she fell.
Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a premises liability lawsuit, asserting that the defendant, the State of New York, which operates the university, failed to maintain the stairwell in a reasonably safe condition. The claim asserted constructive and actual notice theories, contending that the defendant either knew or should have known about the hazardous condition and failed to remedy it.
Reportedly, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it neither created nor had notice of any dangerous condition and that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without resorting to speculation. The defendant submitted evidence regarding general cleaning practices within the dormitory, along with deposition testimony intended to show that no employee had prior awareness of any water accumulation on the stairs.
It is alleged that the plaintiff opposed the motion, relying on her own testimony and that of a friend who inspected the area immediately after the fall. The friend stated that she observed a noticeable amount of water on the stairwell, resembling melted snow, and that the plaintiff’s clothing was wet. The court denied summary judgment in its entirety, prompting the defendant to appeal.
Notice of Dangerous Conditions in Premises Liability Cases
On appeal, the court began by reiterating the defendant’s initial burden on summary judgment: to demonstrate that it did not create the hazardous condition and lacked both actual and constructive notice. The court found that the defendant satisfied its burden only with respect to actual notice. The defendant’s submissions established that university personnel had no prior awareness of water in the stairwell, and the plaintiff offered no contrary evidence, creating a material issue of fact. The court therefore modified the order by dismissing the actual-notice theory.
The court reached a different conclusion regarding constructive notice. To establish constructive notice, a defendant must show that the dangerous condition was not visible and apparent for a sufficient period of time before the accident. The defendant relied on general cleaning procedures but presented no evidence that those procedures were followed on the date of the incident. Moreover, the defendant did not maintain inspection or cleaning records for the stairwell, leaving a factual gap as to how frequently the area was monitored. The lack of such records, combined with the transient nature of melted snow during winter weather, prevented the defendant from meeting its initial burden. Without that showing, the plaintiff was not required to present additional evidence in opposition.
The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that proximate cause was speculative. The plaintiff testified that she felt a slippery substance consistent with water, and her friend corroborated the presence of water on the stairs immediately after the fall. This evidence allowed for logical inferences supporting causation and rendered alternatives too remote or speculative to defeat the claim at the summary judgment stage. Because the defendant failed to eliminate factual issues concerning constructive notice and causation, the denial of summary judgment on those grounds remained intact.
Talk to a Skilled Syracuse Personal Injury Attorney
Slip-and-fall claims involving transient conditions demand careful evaluation of inspection procedures, weather patterns, and notice requirements. If you sustained injuries in a fall on another party’s property, you should talk to an attorney about your legal options. The skilled Syracuse personal injury attorneys of DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can assess your case and help you seek the best result possible. Contact our Syracuse, New York office at 833-200-2000 or reach us online to schedule a free, confidential consultation.