Tuttle v. State

277 A.D.2d 1055, 716 N.Y.S.2d 175
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 2000·No. Claim No. 84565·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment apportioning 90% liability to defendant for injuries sustained by claimant Eleanor Tuttle when she tripped over a tree stump on a paved pathway while camping in a State park. We reject the contention of defendant that it owed no duty to claimants. “The State, as a landowner, has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and control of its parks to prevent injury to foreseeable users of its facilities” (O’Keeffe v State of New York, 140 AD2d 998, 998-999, appeal dismissed 73 NY2d 756). “The path in question had been artificially constructed and the State was under a duty to see that it was constructed and maintained in a reasonably safe condition” (Nichols v State of New York, 286 App Div 281, 283; see also, Loughran v City of New York, 298 NY 320, 322). By allowing a three-inch tree stump to remain in the middle of the pathway, the State failed to maintain its paved pathway in a reasonably safe condition. We also decline to exercise our power to reapportion liability (see, Saiia v State of New York, 190 AD2d 1059). (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, Midey, Jr., J. — Negligence.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurl-butt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Tuttle v. State, 277 A.D.2d 1055, 716 N.Y.S.2d 175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

277 A.D.2d 1055 (Tuttle v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grgich v. City of New York
2 A.D.3d 680 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)