2 No. 63
Violeta Espinal,
Appellant,
v.
Melville Snow Contractors, Inc.,
Respondent. (And a third-party action.)
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 60
June 4, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Thomas Torto, for appellant.
Christopher Simone, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
ROSENBLATT, J.:
Plaintiff has brought this personal injury action against defendant, a
company that entered into a snow removal contract with a property
owner. We are called upon to determine whether the company may be held
liable to plaintiff for injuries she sustained when she slipped and
fell on the premises. To decide this appeal, we must determine whether
a contractor of this type owes a duty to a third person, such as
plaintiff.
On January 28, 1998 plaintiff slipped and fell in a parking lot owned
by her employer, Miltope Corporation. Attributing her fall to an "icy
condition," plaintiff sued Melville Snow Contractors, the company
under contract to plow and remove snow from the premises.(1) She
alleged that Melville created the icy condition by negligently
removing snow from the parking lot. Melville moved for summary
judgment, contending that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff.
Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that Melville had failed
to show that "there was a reasonable explanation for the existence of
the ice * * * other than a failure on its part to remove snow and ice
in a non-negligent manner." The Appellate Division reversed, granted
Melville's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
The court held that Melville owed plaintiff no duty of care. Important
for purposes of this appeal, the court also held that plaintiff's
"allegation that (Melville) created or exacerbated the hazardous
condition did not provide a basis for liability." We now affirm the
SNIPPETS:
Plaintiff has brought this personal injury action against defendant, a company that entered
We are called upon to determine whether the company may be held liable to plaintiff for
To decide this appeal, we must determine whether a contractor of this type owes a duty to a
On January 28, 1998 plaintiff slipped and fell in a parking lot owned by her employer,
Attributing her fall to an "icy condition," plaintiff sued Melville Snow Contractors, the
contending that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff.
The Appellate Division reversed, granted Melville's motion for summary judgment and dismissed
The court held that Melville owed plaintiff no duty of care.
Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question
Here, we must determine whether any such duty ran from Melville to plaintiff, given that
the existence and scope of a duty is a question of law requiring courts to balance sometimes
Under our decisional law a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give
Moch, Eaves Brooks and Palka identify contractual situations involving possible tort
There, the defendant entered into a contract with the City of Rensselaer to supply water to
Because the plaintiff company was not a third-party beneficiary, it could not sue for breach
We observed, however, that irrespective of the attendant contractual obligations, tort
In Eaves Brooks we continued the theme, identifying detrimental reliance as another basis for
Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to allege detrimental reliance on Melville's continued
a defendant who undertakes to render services and then negligently creates or exacerbates a
|
