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.
Lawrence ROBINS, respondent, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated October 30, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet step as he was exiting the front of the defendants' bus. According to the plaintiff, rain had fallen overnight, but had stopped about an hour before the accident. Although the plaintiff alleges that the bottom step of the stairwell was worn, his accident occurred before he reached that step. The plaintiff commenced this action, alleging that his accident was caused by the defendants' negligent failure to maintain their bus in a safe manner. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, among other things, that they did not breach their duty of care. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.
The evidence submitted by the defendants, including the plaintiff's deposition testimony and that of the bus driver, established, prima facie, that the defendants did not breach a duty owed to the plaintiff since, under the weather conditions which existed at the time of the accident, “[i]t would be unreasonable to expect the defendant[s] to constantly clean the floor[s] of [their] buses” (Spooner v. New York City Tr. Auth., 298 A.D.2d 575, 575-576, 750 N.Y.S.2d 91; see McKenzie v. County of Westchester, 38 A.D.3d 855, 856, 835 N.Y.S.2d 213). The defendants also established, prima facie, that the worn condition of the bottom step was not a proximate cause of the accident, which occurred before the plaintiff reached that step (see Bohm v. Town of Brookhaven, 43 A.D.3d 454, 841 N.Y.S.2d 144). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).
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: January 20, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)