BLACK ICE EMERGENCY:  An appellate court found the trial court's granting of summary judgment to a passenger in a vehicle on the issue of negligence was improper when defendant claimed he lost control of the vehicle because of black ice, thereby creating an emergency situation ( Greco vs Grande).


IS TRAFFIC AN EMERGENCY?  A bus driver, who suddenly applied his brakes to avoid the vehicle in front of him, allegedly caused a passenger to be injured.  The appellate court found that the driver was not entitled to summary judgment based on the emergency doctrine because he had the duty to maintain a safe distance between the vehicles (Vanderhall vs MTA Bus Co.).


LABOR LAW, PT I:  An appellate court said plaintiff's motion on Labor Law 240(1) was properly denied when plaintiff testified that he was on scaffolding that did not have guardrails, yet he was provided with a six-foot lanyard that would have prevented his fall (although he did not use it at the time of the fall, he had used it on prior occasions).  The court reminded litigants that guardrails are not required with scaffolding if another safety device is made available ( Weitzel vs State of New York, et al.).


LABOR LAW, PT II:  Defendant admitted in its Answer that it hired plaintiff's employer to do "construction work."  After discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Labor Law 240(1).  In response, defendant argued that plaintiff was doing routine maintenance, which is not a covered act under the Labor Law.  The appellate court found that notwithstanding defendant's admission that the employer was hired to do "construction work," it was not sufficient to trigger the protections of the Labor Law. ( Clause vs Globe Metallurgical, Inc.).


LABOR LAW, PT III:  In a Labor Law 240(1) dispute, plaintiff was injured when he fell from a makeshift wooden ladder while negotiating the distance between the first-floor slab of the building under construction and the ground about five feet below.  The appellate court held that plaintiff's decision to use the makeshift ladder was not the sole proximate cause of the accident because he was never instructed not to use it ( Jarzabek vs Schafer Mews).


MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE S.O.L.:  Plaintiff sued a school organization and one of its employees following an accident.  Defendants moved to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, which is one year and ninety days for municipal claims.  The appellate court upheld the denial of the motion because the defense did not establish that the individual was an employee of the school organization and, therefore, entitled to the shortened statute of limitations ( Collins vs Davirro, et al.).


YOU WANT MORE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASES?  An appellate court dismissed a lawsuit where plaintiff was "assaulted, struck, grabbed, battered, beaten, punched, thrown, and seriously injured" by defendant's employee. The court held that contrary to plaintiff's argument, these allegations did not assert a claim sounding in negligence, but rather alleged the intentional tort of assault, which is governed by a one-year statute of limitations (Williams vs 268 West 47th Rest. Inc.).


ESPINAL:  Plaintiff slipped and fell in an icy parking lot and sued the property owner, who commenced a third-party action against the snow plow contractor.  The property owner alleged that the contractor "launched a force or instrument of harm" by piling snow in a certain location.  The appellate court found a question of fact on this issue and reinstated the owner's contribution claim against the contractor ( Chamberlain vs The Church of the Holy Family).

STOP HORSING AROUND:  An equestrian student's lawsuit was not barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine when the teacher selected the wrong type of horse for a novice rider, failed to ensure that plaintiff knew how to handle a horse prior to having it trot, and provided an unsafe area for the lesson ( Enos-Groff vs Schumacher, et al.).
HERE'S MORE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK: Plaintiff brought suit for personal injuries against a municipality after she was struck with a hockey puck while a spectator at a hockey rink owned by the municipality. Defendant moved for summary judgment.  The appellate court said that the municipality was not entitled to summary judgment when it failed to provide increased netting around an ice rink ( Smero vs City of Saratoga Springs). 


" SERIOUS INJURY":  Defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of serious injury when the independent medical examiner, who said plaintiff's range of motion restrictions were "insignificant," failed to establish what is normal range of motion for the cervical spine ( Monterro vs Klein, et al.).




DISCOVERY OF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS:  Plaintiff, a minor, was struck by a vehicle as he departed a bus.  The driver testified that he had been in several accidents before the accident in question.  Plaintiff then requested all records pertaining to the prior accidents, which defendants refused to turn over.  On motion, the trial court held that the documents were to be produced as they were relevant on the issue of negligent retention or supervision of the bus driver.  The appellate court reversed because plaintiff had not alleged negligent hiring, and the records at issue were not otherwise relevant ( Schonbrun vs DeLuke, et al.).