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.
Jodi MILLER, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Defendant–Appellant,
Safeway Construction Enterprises, Inc., Defendant–Respondent. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Safeway Construction Enterprises, Inc., Third–Party Defendant–Respondent, Nico Asphalt, Inc., Third–Party Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered November 7, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted third-party defendant Safeway Construction Enterprises, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the third-party complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Pursuant to a contract with Con Ed, Safeway performed excavation, conduit installation, and backfilling at an intersection where, a few days later, plaintiff allegedly was injured when the front wheel of her scooter fell into a trench in the roadway. The contract called for Safeway to leave the trench an inch and a half below grade; the Con Ed construction representative who oversaw Safeway's work testified that Safeway restored the trench to a depth of an inch and a half below grade. In opposition to this prima facie showing that Safeway did precisely what it was obligated to do under the contract, Con Ed failed to raise an issue of fact whether Safeway performed its contractual obligations negligently and created an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff, for whose injuries it could be held liable (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136 [2002]; Agosto v. 30th Place Holding, LLC, 73 AD3d 492, 493 [1st Dept 2010] ). We reject Con Ed's contention that Safeway owed plaintiff a duty pursuant to general negligence principles (see Espinal, 98 N.Y.2d at 140).
Contrary to Con Ed's contention, no issue of fact exists whether Safeway breached its contractual duty to “protect and maintain” the 11/212-inch-deep trench for five days after completing its work by failing to place cones or barricades in the vicinity. Pursuant to article 7.6 of Con Ed's “Trenching Manual,” Safeway was “responsible for maintaining excavations and plates for a period of 5 working days from the date excavations are available for use by others.” However, as defined in article 21 of Con Ed's “Standard Terms and Conditions of Construction Contracts,” “maintenance” means keeping the work site “neat, orderly and workmanlike” so as not to interfere with the progress of work performed there; the definition does not refer to the safety of the general public.
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: November 27, 2012
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)