Dapp v. Larson
1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6688, 659 N.Y.S.2d 130, 240 A.D.2d 918 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a premises liability action, a plaintiff fails to establish causation and cannot defeat a summary judgment motion when their claim is based on speculation, and the evidence shows it is equally possible that the injury resulted from a cause for which the defendant is not responsible.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a home health aide, was working at Defendant's residence on April 30, 1992.
- It was raining, and the porch and steps of the residence were wet.
- The porch and steps were covered in all-weather carpeting, and a brown plastic doormat was located on the porch near the doorway.
- As Plaintiff was leaving the residence and started to descend the stairs, she fell.
- After landing at the bottom of the stairs, Plaintiff observed the brown plastic doormat lying on the bottom step and the sidewalk.
- Plaintiff testified that she did not notice the location of the doormat immediately before her fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against Defendant in the Supreme Court of New York, Chemung County (trial court).
- After the initial pleadings, Defendant moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint.
- The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case raise a triable issue of fact as to causation sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment when she testifies that she did not see the alleged dangerous object until after her fall, and other potential causes for the fall existed?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardona, P. J.
No. A plaintiff in a negligence action must establish that an alleged dangerous condition was the proximate cause of their injury to establish a prima facie case. Here, the plaintiff failed to submit any proof that the doormat actually caused her to fall. The plaintiff's testimony revealed she only saw the mat at the bottom of the stairs after she fell and did not know its location immediately prior to the incident. The court reasoned that a conclusion that the doormat caused the fall amounts to mere 'surmise, conjecture, [or] speculation,' which is without probative value. It is just as plausible that the fall was caused by the wet steps due to the rain, a condition for which the defendant would not necessarily be liable. Because the failure to prove what actually caused a fall is fatal to a plaintiff's case where other causes could exist, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation, and summary judgment for the defendant was properly granted.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the critical importance of the causation element in negligence law, particularly in slip-and-fall cases. It establishes that a plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment by merely identifying a potential hazard in the vicinity of their accident; they must provide concrete evidence linking that specific hazard to the fall. The ruling empowers trial courts to dismiss cases where the plaintiff's theory of causation is speculative, especially when an alternative, non-negligent cause (like rainy weather) is equally plausible. This creates a high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to present specific facts explaining the mechanism of their fall, rather than relying on inference.
