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.
DONALD J. GARVIN, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. EDWARD C. WOJCIK, JR., DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained while cutting down a tree on defendant's property. Plaintiff and a third party volunteered to help defendant remove trees from his property. Defendant told the parties which direction a certain tree needed to fall, and the parties decided to delimb the tree first. Using his own chainsaw and defendant's ladder, plaintiff started removing branches from the tree. Defendant positioned the ladder after each branch was removed. Plaintiff had cut almost all the way through one particular branch and commented to defendant and the third party, who were standing on the ground, that the branch was not sagging as he had expected it would. Plaintiff testified that either defendant or the third party or both told him to “just cut it.” Plaintiff continued cutting, and then the branch suddenly swung toward him and struck the ladder, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain injuries.
Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It is well settled that a landowner owes those on his property a duty of “reasonable care under the circumstances” (Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241). Here, plaintiff was not injured owing to an unsafe condition on the property, but rather he was injured as “the direct result of the manner in which [he] engaged in a voluntary activity” on the property (Jarvis v. Eastman, 202 A.D.2d 826, 827; see Macey v. Truman, 70 N.Y.2d 918, 919, mot to amend remittitur granted 71 N.Y.2d 949). In support of his motion, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that his participation in the injury-producing activity was not causally related to the accident (see Lichtenthal v. St. Mary's Church, 166 A.D.2d 873, 875; cf. Macey, 70 N.Y.2d at 919–920; Jones v. County of Erie, 121 AD3d 1562, 1562–1563).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 15–01415
Decided: April 29, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)