Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

878 N.E.2d 1015, 9 N.Y.3d 973

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 878 N.E.2d 1015 (Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 878 N.E.2d 1015, 9 N.Y.3d 973 (N.Y. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Defendant CSX was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact on the issue of whether CSX breached a duty of care it owed plaintiff as owner of the railroad yard where plaintiff was injured. Absent a hazardous condition or other circumstance giving rise to an obligation to provide exterior lighting for a particular area, landowners are generally not required “to illuminate their property during all hours of darkness” (Peralta v Henriquez, 100 NY2d 139, 145 [2003]). In this case, even assuming CSX had an obligation to light the railroad yard, it is undisputed that CSX provided lighting in the yard. The railroad yard was dark at the time of plaintiffs injury due to a power outage—a problem that CSX did not cause or control and that was known to plaintiff when he entered the property. Thus, [975]*975plaintiff has failed to come forward with any proof that his injury, caused when he tripped on the ramp of another truck, was attributable to negligence on the part of CSX.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur; Judge Read taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Defendant CSX was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact on the issue of whether CSX breached a duty of care it owed plaintiff as owner of the railroad yard where plaintiff was injured. Absent a hazardous condition or other circumstance giving rise to an obligation to provide exterior lighting for a particular area, landowners are generally not required “to illuminate their property during all hours of darkness” (Peralta v Henriquez, 100 NY2d 139, 145 [2003]). In this case, even assuming CSX had an obligation to light the railroad yard, it is undisputed that CSX provided lighting in the yard. The railroad yard was dark at the time of plaintiffs injury due to a power outage—a problem that CSX did not cause or control and that was known to plaintiff when he entered the property. Thus, [975]*975plaintiff has failed to come forward with any proof that his injury, caused when he tripped on the ramp of another truck, was attributable to negligence on the part of CSX.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur; Judge Read taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

878 N.E.2d 1015, 9 N.Y.3d 973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-consolidated-rail-corp-ny-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack