Thomas v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. New York City Transit Authority

101 A.D.3d 852, 957 N.Y.2d 147

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 852 (Thomas v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas v. New York City Transit Authority, 101 A.D.3d 852, 957 N.Y.2d 147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a wet, “slushy” step as she was exiting the front door of a bus operated by an employee of the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA). It is undisputed that the accident occurred during an ongoing snowstorm.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by her. Thereafter, the NYCTA moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the Supreme Court denied that branch of the NYCTA’s motion.

Initially, we take this opportunity to clarify the NYCTA’s duty of care under the circumstances presented herein. “[A] common carrier is subject to the same duty of care as any other potential [853]*853tortfeasor — reasonable care under all of the circumstances of the particular case” (Bethel v New York City Tr. Auth., 92 NY2d 348, 356 [1998] [emphasis added]). In this regard, the NYCTA does, in fact, have a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, in view of all of the circumstances (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]).

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the NYCTA made a prima facie showing that it exercised reasonable care under the circumstances existing at the time of the accident and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Under the particular circumstances of this case, including the inclement weather conditions which existed at the time of the accident, it would be unreasonable to expect the NYCTA to constantly clean the steps of the subject bus (see Rayford v County of Westchester, 59 AD3d 508, 509 [2009]; Robins v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 58 AD3d 711 [2009]; McKenzie v County of Westchester, 38 AD3d 855, 856 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the NYCTA’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a wet, “slushy” step as she was exiting the front door of a bus operated by an employee of the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA). It is undisputed that the accident occurred during an ongoing snowstorm.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by her. Thereafter, the NYCTA moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the Supreme Court denied that branch of the NYCTA’s motion.

Initially, we take this opportunity to clarify the NYCTA’s duty of care under the circumstances presented herein. “[A] common carrier is subject to the same duty of care as any other potential [853]*853tortfeasor — reasonable care under all of the circumstances of the particular case” (Bethel v New York City Tr. Auth., 92 NY2d 348, 356 [1998] [emphasis added]). In this regard, the NYCTA does, in fact, have a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, in view of all of the circumstances (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]).

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the NYCTA made a prima facie showing that it exercised reasonable care under the circumstances existing at the time of the accident and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Under the particular circumstances of this case, including the inclement weather conditions which existed at the time of the accident, it would be unreasonable to expect the NYCTA to constantly clean the steps of the subject bus (see Rayford v County of Westchester, 59 AD3d 508, 509 [2009]; Robins v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 58 AD3d 711 [2009]; McKenzie v County of Westchester, 38 AD3d 855, 856 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the NYCTA’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 852, 957 N.Y.2d 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack