Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History
113 A.D.2d 697 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner may be found to have constructive notice of a dangerous condition when the landowner is aware of a recurring hazardous condition that it created or contributed to and fails to take reasonable measures to remedy it, particularly during predictable peak periods, even without proof of how long the specific piece of debris causing injury was present.
Facts:
- The American Museum of Natural History contracted with ARA Services, Inc. to operate an outdoor food concession stand on a plaza adjacent to the museum's main front steps.
- Museum officials intentionally encouraged people to congregate on the steps to make the museum 'look busy like the Metropolitan Museum.'
- The museum was aware that people regularly sat on the front steps to eat, especially between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m., resulting in a continuous problem with litter that it acknowledged was a dangerous condition.
- The museum assigned an employee to clean the steps, but this employee was on a lunch break between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m., and no replacement was assigned during this peak time.
- On August 11, 1981, around noon, plaintiff Farrall was escorting a group of children to the museum.
- Farrall observed people eating on the steps and noticed tissues and other papers strewn about the area.
- While descending the steps, Farrall's foot slipped on a white, waxy piece of paper, causing him to fall and sustain injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Farrall sued defendant The American Museum of Natural History in the Supreme Court, New York County (a trial court), for personal injuries.
- A trial was held on the issue of liability only.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Farrall.
- The trial court entered a judgment on December 18, 1984, finding the museum liable.
- The American Museum of Natural History (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division (an 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 landowner have constructive notice of a specific dangerous condition caused by debris when it is aware of a continuous and recurring litter problem on its premises, operates in a manner that contributes to that problem, and fails to provide adequate maintenance during a peak period of use?
Opinions:
Majority - Milonas, J.
Yes. A landowner has constructive notice of a specific dangerous condition when there is sufficient evidence for a jury to determine the owner knew or should have known about a recurring hazard. Here, the museum was aware that its operation of a food concession and its policy of encouraging people to congregate on the steps created a continuous and dangerous litter problem. By failing to assign a cleaner during the peak lunch hour, a time it knew the hazard was at its highest, the museum negligently left the steps unmaintained. Given that the museum's actions contributed to creating the hazardous condition, it is not dispositive that the plaintiff could not prove how long the specific piece of paper he slipped on had been there. The museum's awareness of the ongoing debris problem and its duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition were sufficient to establish constructive notice.
Dissenting - Kassal, J.
No. Negligence liability requires proof that the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the specific dangerous condition that caused the injury for a period of time sufficient to allow for its remedy. The plaintiff failed to produce any evidence showing how long the particular piece of wax paper had been on the steps before he fell. The majority's holding improperly expands landowner liability towards an insurer-like standard, where responsibility arises from the general nature of the premises rather than from a specific, proven failure to act upon notice of a particular hazard. This creates a dangerous precedent that would impose absolute liability on numerous public venues.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for premises liability law because it broadens the concept of constructive notice beyond the traditional requirement of proving how long a specific hazard existed. The court held that constructive notice can be established when a landowner is aware of a recurring dangerous condition that its own business practices help create, even without direct evidence about the duration of the specific object causing the fall. The key factors are: (1) the landowner's knowledge of an ongoing hazardous condition; (2) the landowner's role in creating or contributing to that condition; and (3) the landowner's failure to take reasonable preventive measures, especially during predictable peak periods. This shifts the focus from the specific hazard to the landowner's overall maintenance practices in light of known recurring dangers. The ruling places a greater burden on property owners who create conditions prone to litter to maintain vigilant and continuous cleaning, particularly during times when the hazard is most likely to occur.
