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.
Juan RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PROPERTY FOR the PEOPLE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about October 16, 2000, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
According to the complaint, plaintiff sustained injuries while attempting to rescue a three-year-old girl from the roof of a building, where she landed after she fell out of an unguarded third-floor window of the apartment in defendant landlord's building in which she resided. Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant upon the theory that defendant's alleged negligence, namely, leaving the window of the three-year-old's apartment unguarded, precipitated a situation in which the child was so endangered as to invite the rescue attempt that resulted in his injury. Contrary to defendant's contention, it is not clear that the three-year-old child was not placed in imminent danger by reason of the alleged negligence, and thus, we cannot say that the inapplicability of the “danger invites rescue” doctrine to the facts at bar has been established as a matter of law (see, Wagner v. International Ry. Co., 232 N.Y. 176, 133 N.E. 437; Villoch v. Lindgren, 269 A.D.2d 271, 703 N.Y.S.2d 131). Nor, in view of the factual questions as to the imminence and magnitude of the danger to the subject child, can we say, as a matter of law, that the rescue method employed by plaintiff was so rash under the circumstances as to constitute an intervening and superseding cause of plaintiff's harm (see, id.; Rodriguez v. New York State Thruway Auth., 82 A.D.2d 853, 854, 440 N.Y.S.2d 49; compare, Sullivan v. 673 First Ave. Assocs., 250 A.D.2d 394, 673 N.Y.S.2d 82; lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 809, 678 N.Y.S.2d 595, 700 N.E.2d 1231).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
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: February 05, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)