John Doe v. XYZ Corporation
67 NY 2d 836, 501 NYS 2d 646 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To constitute constructive notice in a premises liability case, a plaintiff must prove the specific defect was visible, apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time for the property owner's employees to discover and remedy it. A general awareness that a dangerous condition may be present is insufficient to establish constructive notice.
Facts:
- Defendant contracted for a concession stand to be located on the plaza area of its front entrance steps.
- Plaintiff was descending the defendant's exterior front entrance steps.
- Approximately 10 minutes before his fall, Plaintiff observed other pieces of paper on another portion of the steps.
- Plaintiff slipped on the third step of the upper tier of stairs.
- While he was in midair during his fall, Plaintiff observed a piece of white, waxy paper next to his left foot.
- No one, including Plaintiff, saw this specific piece of paper on the step prior to the accident.
- Plaintiff did not describe the paper as being dirty or worn.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Defendant in a New York trial court for negligence.
- The case was submitted to a jury on the theory that Defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on the issue of liability.
- Defendant appealed the verdict to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- A divided panel of the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Appellate Division granted Defendant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, on a certified question.
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 property owner have constructive notice of a specific dangerous condition on its premises simply because there is a general awareness of litter in the area or because other litter was observed on a different part of the property minutes earlier?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Memorandum)
No. A property owner does not have constructive notice of a specific dangerous condition merely from a general awareness of litter or the presence of other litter nearby. To establish liability on a theory of constructive notice, the plaintiff must present evidence that the specific dangerous condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient duration to allow the defendant's employees to discover and rectify it. In this case, there is no evidence of how long the particular piece of paper was on the step. It could have been deposited there only minutes or seconds before the accident, and any conclusion to the contrary would be pure speculation. The plaintiff's observation of other litter on a different part of the stairs is legally insufficient to charge the defendant with notice of the specific paper that caused the fall.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for plaintiffs in proving constructive notice in premises liability cases involving transient conditions like litter. It establishes that a plaintiff cannot rely on generalized evidence of messiness but must provide specific proof that the particular hazard existed for a sufficient period of time to be discovered. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in slip-and-fall cases without direct or circumstantial evidence (like a dirty or worn condition) indicating the hazard's duration. The ruling protects property owners from liability for conditions they had no reasonable opportunity to address.
