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.
Barbara E. SCHROEDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Barbara E. Schroeder (“Schroeder”) appeals the judgment of the District Court granting the motion of defendant-appellees United States Postal Service and United States of America (jointly, “defendants”) for judgment on partial findings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) and dismissing Schroeder’s complaint. Schroeder sued defendants for personal injury under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680, in connection with her fall in a post office. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
When reviewing a District Court’s grant of judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c), we review findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. See MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 157 F.3d 956, 960 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam).
Because the underlying incident occurred in New York, the District Court correctly applied New York law to plaintiff’s claim under the FTCA. See Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78, 86 (2d Cir. 2012). To succeed on a slip-and-fall negligence claim under New York law, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a dangerous or defective condition and must show either that the defendant “created a dangerous condition” or that the defendant “had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.” Lemonda v. Sutton, 268 A.D.2d 383, 702 N.Y.S.2d 275, 276 (1st Dep’t 2000). A plaintiff must also show that the defendant’s negligence caused her injury. See Montemarano v. Sodexo, Inc., 121 A.D.3d 1059, 995 N.Y.S.2d 207, 208 (2d Dep’t 2014). “A plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of his or her fall is fatal to a claim of negligence in a slip-and-fall case.” Id.
The District Court entered findings of fact on the record, concluding that Schroeder failed to prove that: (1) there was any defect or dangerous condition; (2) defendants had any notice of a defect or dangerous condition; or (3) Schroeder’s injuries were caused by any negligent or wrongful acts or omissions by defendants. After reviewing the full record, we conclude that these factual findings are not clearly erroneous. We further conclude that the District Court correctly determined that these findings support granting the motion for judgment to defendants.
CONCLUSION
We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Schroeder on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the January 24, 2018 judgment of the District Court.
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: 18-808-cv
Decided: May 28, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
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)