Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog
Personal injury claims arising from slip-and-fall accidents frequently turn on whether a property owner exercised reasonable care to maintain safe conditions and address known hazards. Defendants often attempt to avoid liability by asserting a lack of control over the premises or by denying notice of a dangerous condition. A recent New York decision examined these arguments in the context of a fall caused by water accumulation inside a multi-story building. If you were injured in a slip and fall accident, it is advisable to consult a Syracuse personal injury attorney about your potential claims.
Facts and Procedural History
It is reported that the plaintiff was injured after slipping and falling on a wet floor at a building owned by the defendant. The accident occurred on a fifth-floor landing near a stairway, where water had accumulated on the floor.
Allegedly, the water was caused by a leak through a skylight located above the landing. The plaintiff testified that it had rained the day before the incident and again on the morning of the fall. She further stated that, after her fall, she observed water leaking from a light fixture and onto the hallway floor.
Reportedly, the plaintiff asserted that the water accumulation was not a new condition. According to her testimony, her employer, who resided in the building, told her that water had been collecting on the same landing during rainstorms for many years. The plaintiff stated that she relayed these complaints to the building’s superintendent prior to the accident.
It is alleged that the defendant moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the complaint. The defendant argued that it was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to maintain the premises and that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.
Notice in Slip and Fall Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed whether the defendant established entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court explained that a property owner seeking dismissal must demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact and must affirmatively show either that it owed no duty to the plaintiff or that it lacked notice of the alleged dangerous condition.
The court first addressed the defendant’s claim that it was an out-of-possession landlord. While an out-of-possession landlord may, in certain circumstances, avoid liability for injuries occurring on the premises, the court emphasized that the burden rests with the defendant to establish that it relinquished possession and control. The defendant asserted that a management company handled daily maintenance, but the court found that the defendant failed to submit competent evidence demonstrating that it had surrendered control of the premises. As a result, the defendant did not establish, as a matter of law, that it owed no duty to maintain safe conditions.
The court next considered whether the defendant established a lack of actual or constructive notice of the water condition. The defendant relied on testimony from a building handyman who stated that he inspected the premises daily and had not observed leaks or received complaints about the skylight. However, the court found that the plaintiff’s testimony raised triable issues of fact. The plaintiff described prior rainfall, longstanding water accumulation during storms, and prior complaints made to building personnel. She also testified to personally observing water actively leaking after her fall.
The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s failure to notice the wet floor before slipping conclusively established a lack of notice. The court explained that a plaintiff’s inability to observe a hazardous condition does not, by itself, eliminate the possibility that the defendant knew or should have known of the condition.
The court also addressed the defendant’s contention that certain statements relied upon by the plaintiff constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court determined that the statements were properly considered at the summary judgment stage because they were offered to show that the defendant received information about the leak, not to prove the truth of the statements themselves. When considered alongside other evidence, those statements supported an inference of notice.
Based on these findings, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, allowing the personal injury action to proceed.
Speak with a Knowledgeable Syracuse Personal Injury Attorney
If you suffered harm in a slip and fall accident on someone else’s property, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to an attorney. The knowledgeable Syracuse personal injury attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can assess your case and help you seek the best outcome available. You can reach us at 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.