Slip and Fall-black ice

The Court of Appeals has recognized a possible exception to the prior written notice statute required for bring a personal injury action against the government. In San Marco v. Village/Town of Mount Kisco , the Court found that there was an issue as to whether village created black ice condition upon which plaintiff slipped and fell precluded summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals has held that the "immediacy" test for determining whether the "affirmative creation" exception to the prior written notice statute excused written notification in cases involving hazards caused by a pothole or manhole cover did not extend to cases involving hazards related to negligent snow removal. As such, a village could be liable for a negligent ice condition without receiving prior written notice, if it created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence. However, a fact issue as to whether the village created the black ice condition upon which the plaintiff slipped and fell precluded summary judgment in the plaintiff's personal injury action against the village.

Hit and run drivers

Recently, the Suffolk County Police Fifth Squad detectives investigated a hit-and-run crash that seriously injured a pedestrian. Police responded to a 911 call from a passing motorist reporting that a pedestrian was lying on the ground on North Ocean Avenue near Vehslage Street in Patchogue on December 11 at 6:07 p.m. When police arrived, they determined that a man had been struck by an unidentified vehicle that fled in an unknown direction. The injured man was transported to Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center in East Patchogue and was listed in critical condition.

Slip and Fall on Ice-great decision

New York State's highest court has recently decided a case that will be very favorable to plaintiff's injured after slipping on "black ice." In the case, San Marco v. Village/Town of Mount Kisco, a woman who was seriously injured when she slipped on "black ice" in a municipal parking lot was not required to show the municipality had received prior written notice of the hazard for her suit against it to proceed. The lack of prior written notice is often the reason for dismissal of cases such as Ms. San Marco's.
In her case, Ms. San Marco claimed the village created the hazardous condition when its piled up snow that then melted and re-froze over several days. In denying the village's motion for summary judgment, the Court's majority said the municipality's alleged negligence distinguished the case from other prior-notification issues.
"A jury must decide whether San Marco fell on ice created by the Village's snow clearance operation," Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote for the majority. "And relatedly, there are factual issues concerning whether the Village exercised its duty of care to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition by plowing snow high alongside active parking spaces, and in failing to salt or sand the lot on weekends, despite the fact that it remained open seven days a week."

Gap in treatment

When deciding if a plaintiff's personal injury claim meets the threshold required by law, the Courts will often look to see if the person treated continuously. Unexplained gaps in treatment have led to the dismissal of many claims. Recently, the Court addressed the issue of "gap in treatment" in Abdelaziz v Fazel, 2010 NY Slip Op 08877. There the Court held that the plaintiff's affidavit explained the gap in his treatment. In the statement, the plaintiff explained that he stopped treatment after his no-fault benefits were terminated and he could not afford to personally pay for further treatment (see Black v Robinson, 305 AD2d 438, 439-440; see also Domanas v Delgado Travel Agency, Inc., 56 AD3d 717, 718; Jules v Barbecho, 55 AD3d 548, 549).

Assumption of the risk

It is often to prove negligence in cases where a plaintiff engages in potential dangerous activity such as sporting events, horseback riding, sky-diving and similar events. The Courts have consistently held that most times a plaintiff assumes the risk that he/she may be injured by engaging in such activity. This issue was recently addressed by the appellate courts in Stanislav v. Papp. There the Court held that the defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty to ensure that the horseback riding experience on their date was safe. The plaintiff had experience riding horses and was aware that the risks of falling from a horse or a horse acting in an unintended manner were inherent in the sport.