Trip and Fall accidents

In trip and fall cases, defendants will often argue that a defect was "open and obvious," thus the injured plaintiff should have seen the defect. This claim, however, should not be fatal to a claim. Under the theory of comparative negligence, just because the plaintiff may be partly responsible for the happening of an accident, doesn't mean that the case is over. This issue was recently addressed by an appellate court. In Saretsky v. 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., the plaintiff, Saretsky was hurt when she fell off a raised walkway in front of defendant's building after exiting a store. The platform-like raised walkway extends some 4½ feet from the building's face and ends at a 5-inch-high transition step at the center of the sidewalk. At a General Municipal Law §50-h hearing, Saretsky asserted she did not see the transition step, which she claimed was dangerous and trap-like. Supreme Court summarily dismissed her personal injury action after interpreting her claim that she did not see the purportedly "open and obvious" step as being that "she fell because she wasn't looking." Discussing Westbrook v. WR Activities-Cabreara Mkts. and Chafoulias v. 240 E. 55th Street Tenants Corp., and noting that her theory of "optical confusion" was supported by the record, the First Department reversed and reinstated the personal injury complaint. The panel ruled that the lower court's determination was error. Citing Westbrook, it reiterated the "well established principle" that a finding of "open and obvious" as to a hazardous condition is not fatal to a plaintiff's negligence claim. Rather it is relevant only to plaintiff's comparative fault. Therefore, summary dismissal of Saretsky's complaint was inappropriate.

Lack of Preparation Botches Discovery

In Sapichino v. City of New York, a personal injury action arising from a trip-and-fall on raised city sidewalk flagstones, plaintiff requested that the trial court strike the city's Answer for failing to comply with the court's prior discovery orders. The plaintiff submitted this request six weeks after filing a Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness, which informs the court that all pre-trial discovery has been completed. The rules of the trial courts state that you cannot seek, except under special circumstances, discovery after you file the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness. The problem here was the plaintiff's attorney filed the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness and inserted a paragraph in the Certificate that there was still a discovery and inspection response by the city that was outstanding. Plaintiff's counsel argued that this modification was "how [they] do it in Brooklyn" and therefore, plaintiff's right to post Note of Issue discovery. The court stated it knew of no "Brooklyn" exception to the Uniform Court Rules, and denied plaintiff's motion, ruling plaintiff failed to make the required showing under Price v. Brady of "special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances" warranting a deviation from the court rule of no post Note of Issue discovery. The court declined to strike the defendant City's Answer or allow the requested discovery. This case highlights the importance of finding an experienced trial attorney who understands how to comply with procedural rules for all the different courts he or she practices in. www.foleygriffin.com