In Austin v. Buffalo Bills, Inc., 2012 WL 895455, the plaintiff was injured while working as a security guard during a home game of the Buffalo Bills. The plaintiff was positioned on the field near the end zone when two players left the field of play and collided with him. The plaintiff commenced an action to recover for injuries sustained at the game. The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Fourth Department held that the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries. The Fourth Department held, "Where, as here, the plaintiff fully comprehended the risks or the risks are perfectly obvious, then the plaintiff has consented to them and the defendant has performed its duty." Further the Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that he was under an inherent compulsion to assume the risk.

In Koval v. Markley, 2012 WL 894889, the plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she fell down the basement staircase at the defendant's home. The plaintiff used the bathroom in the defendant's home upon her arrival. She returned down the same hallway to use the bathroom several hours later. Although the hallway was dark at the time, the plaintiff did not ask the defendant where a light switch was located, nor did the plaintiff attempt to find one. The plaintiff proceeded to open a door in the hallway to what she believed to be the bathroom, but it lead to the basement stairs. She entered the doorway and fell down the stairs.

The defendant moved for summary judgment seeking a dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that there was no defects on the property that caused or contributed to the plaintiff's injuries and that the defendant had no duty to warn the plaintiff of the unlit basement staircase. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion dismissing the complaint and the Fourth Department affirmed. The Fourth Department held that the plaintiff's conduct in opening the basement door and entering the unlit staircase resulted in an open and obvious danger of which defendant had no duty to warn. Further the plaintiff had used the bathroom earlier during that visit and the plaintiff recognized that the door to the basement opened in a different manner than the door to the bathroom which she had used earlier.

In Cannon v. Giordano, et al., 2012 WL 975712, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained when she was hit in the face with a beer bottle thrown by defendant Giordano, an intoxicated twenty-year-old at a bar. Hours prior to the incident, Giordano attended a party hosted by the Snyder defendants at a local restaurant.

The record established that the Snyder defendants purchased two or three pitchers of beer for a party to celebrate their daughter's twenty-first birthday. The beer was placed on a table where guests could help themselves. Giordano was the only person under the age of twenty-one who attended the party. The Snyder defendants testified at their depositions that they did not observe Giordano drinking beer at any time during the party. Rather, the Snyders were under the impression that a waitress assigned to the party would regulate access to the beer. Further, they thought that the restaurant was responsible for checking identification of the guests. Giordano testified at her deposition that she helped herself to "a beer or two" during the party, and thereafter she had several drinks at the bar in the same restaurant before proceeding to the second bar where the beer bottle incident occurred.

The Snyders moved for summary judgment. The trial judge granted the Snyders' motion. The Fourth Department affirmed the lower court. Reviewing the criteria which must be established by a claimant for recovery under New York's Dram Shop Act, i.e. General Obligations Law §11-100, the Fourth Department found that the Snyder defendants were unaware that Giordano drank beer at the party and did not knowingly cause her intoxication. The Snyder defendants were not part of a deliberate plan to provide alcohol. Therefore the Snyder defendants did not "unlawfully assist in procuring alcoholic beverages" for Giordano as required by General Obligations Law §11-100.

In Singleton v. Gibson, 2012 WL 975720, the plaintiff commenced an action on behalf of her daughter seeking damages for burns sustained by her daughter when the daughter came into contact with a hot radiator pipe in an apartment owned by the defendants. The incident occurred when the child fell from a mattress while sleeping. According to the plaintiff, the child apparently rolled into a pipe that was uninsulated and was attached to a steam radiator in the room. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in "allowing extremely hot pipes to be exposed and uninsulated," thereby subjecting tenants to a significant risk of burn injuries.

Following discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Monroe County Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. The Fourth Department affirmed the lower Court's decision holding that unless a duty to repair the premises is imposed by statute, regulation or contract, a landlord is not liable to a tenant for dangerous conditions on the leased premises. The Court found that in this case, there was no duty set forth in the lease between the landlord and the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was unable to cite any statute or regulation imposing a duty upon the landlord to protect tenants from exposed radiator pipes.

Prepared by Manik J. Saini