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.
Ellen M. FOREMAN and Louis J. Foreman, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COYNE TEXTILE SERVICES OF BUFFALO, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages sustained by Ellen M. Foreman (plaintiff) when she fell at work on an allegedly wet rug that had been delivered by defendant to her place of employment. “When faced with a motion for summary judgment on proximate cause grounds, a plaintiff need not prove proximate cause by a preponderance of the evidence, which is plaintiff's burden at trial. Instead, in order to withstand summary judgment, a plaintiff need only raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendant's conduct proximately caused plaintiff's injuries” (Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 544, 550, 684 N.Y.S.2d 139, 706 N.E.2d 1163; see also, Travieso v. 3908 Bronx Blvd. Corp., 259 A.D.2d 276, 686 N.Y.S.2d 42). Plaintiffs submitted evidence in admissible form raising triable issues of fact whether the rug delivered by defendant that morning was wet and, if so, whether the wet condition of the rug caused or contributed to the injuries sustained by plaintiff.
That evidence is sufficient to allow a jury to reach a verdict on the issue of proximate cause “based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” (Schneider v. Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 N.Y.2d 743, 744, 500 N.Y.S.2d 95, 490 N.E.2d 1221).
Order unanimously affirmed with costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 08, 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)