Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Daniel O. KLEIN and Sharon L. Klein, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WITNAUER TRUCKING CO., INC., Defendant-Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Daniel O. Klein (plaintiff) sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot walkway of the plant where he was employed. Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that Witnauer Trucking Co., Inc. (Witnauer) was negligent in failing to maintain the parking lot area by keeping it free of ice. With respect to the order in appeal No. 1, Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Witnauer seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim against it. Witnauer's contract for snow and ice removal with plaintiff's employer, General Mills, Inc. (General Mills), required Witnauer to remove snow and ice only upon request by General Mills. Witnauer did not assume a duty to prevent foreseeable harm to plaintiff pursuant to its snow and ice removal contract, “nor do plaintiffs allege that [Witnauer] was affirmatively negligent by creating or increasing a risk of harm” to plaintiff (Di Sano v. KBH Constr. Co., 280 A.D.2d 951, 721 N.Y.S.2d 200).
With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, we conclude that the court erred in granting the motion of defendant Pinkerton Security Services, Inc. (Pinkerton) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. Pinkerton was responsible for, inter alia, checking for snow and ice and for calling Witnauer to plow and salt paved areas. Pinkerton “failed to prove that the ice formed so close in time to the accident that [it] could not reasonably have been expected to notice and remedy the condition” (Jordan v. Musinger, 197 A.D.2d 889, 890, 602 N.Y.S.2d 289) and thus failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that it lacked constructive notice of the icy condition that caused plaintiff to slip and fall (see, Duman v. City of Buffalo, 269 A.D.2d 848, 849, 703 N.Y.S.2d 800). Pinkerton's failure to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 02, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)