Lewis v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
472 N.Y.S.2d 368, 99 A.D.2d 246, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16546 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common carrier owes only a standard of ordinary care for the safety of passengers on its station platforms and approaches, requiring proof that the carrier created a dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it for liability to attach for a slip and fall.
Facts:
- On September 28, 1978, plaintiff, then 41 years old and weighing between 180 and 230 pounds, was at defendants' Northport station of the Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR) after visiting her son.
- The train had been in the station for 10 to 15 minutes, and plaintiff's daughter, Diane, had already boarded.
- As plaintiff approached the train, she observed two LIRR employees talking about 30 feet away at the front of the train.
- Plaintiff placed her right hand on the car railing to lift herself onto the first step when she slipped on a 'dark, oil and sticky and gooky' substance on the asphalt station platform, breaking the heel of her shoe.
- Plaintiff had not seen the substance, described as no larger than an inch or an inch and a half, before her fall because it blended with the black platform.
- After the accident, plaintiff's daughter observed 'a splat of melted oil' with a line indicating where plaintiff's foot went through it, but LIRR employees who responded testified they found no oily or slippery substance on the platform or on plaintiff's heel.
- Following the accident, plaintiff underwent multiple hospital admissions and four operative procedures to relieve back pain, incurring special damages exceeding $55,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued the Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR) for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall on a station platform.
- During the trial, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on three occasions and once after verdict, arguing that plaintiff failed to present evidence of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
- The trial court reserved decision on these motions.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $750,000, finding plaintiff 25% contributorily negligent.
- The trial court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding the jury was properly instructed on actual and constructive notice.
- The trial court deemed the verdict excessive and ordered a new trial on damages unless plaintiff stipulated to reduce the award to $400,000, which would then be further reduced by her 25% contributory negligence.
- Plaintiff stipulated to the reduction.
- Defendants appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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 common carrier, held to a standard of ordinary care for its station platforms, owe liability to a passenger injured by a slippery substance on the platform when there is no proof that the carrier created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence?
Opinions:
Majority - Kassal, J.
No, a common carrier is not liable to a passenger injured by a slippery substance on a station platform when there is no proof that the carrier created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence. While a common carrier is held to a high standard of care for passengers during transportation, it owes only a standard of ordinary care for the safety of its station platforms and approaches. To establish liability for a slip and fall on a foreign substance on a platform, a plaintiff must prove either that the defendant created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence and a reasonable opportunity to correct or warn about it. Constructive notice requires the defect to be visible and apparent, and to have existed for a sufficient period that the carrier is presumed to have seen it or was negligent in failing to see it. Here, although the jury accepted the plaintiff's account of the substance, there was no evidence presented as to how long the slippery substance had been on the platform, nor that the defendants created it. Without evidence that the condition existed for a sufficient period for the carrier, in the exercise of reasonable care, to discover and correct it, there was no factual issue for the jury. The mere occurrence of an accident does not establish liability. Furthermore, the argument that plaintiff's obesity created a 'special duty' was not raised at trial and, in any event, applies to visibly disabled persons, not generally to someone who is merely heavy.
Concurring - Fein, J.
I concur in the result, finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant created the dangerous condition or had the requisite actual or constructive notice of the slippery substance on the station platform. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence that plaintiff's alleged obesity required or prompted a request for assistance in boarding the train.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the differing standards of care owed by common carriers: a higher duty during actual transportation versus an ordinary care standard for station platforms. It strongly reinforces the 'notice' requirement in premises liability claims, making it difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in slip-and-fall cases without concrete evidence of how long a hazardous condition existed. The ruling emphasizes that the mere occurrence of an accident is insufficient to establish liability, imposing a significant burden on plaintiffs to prove the carrier's knowledge or negligence. The decision also limits the application of a 'special duty' to passengers with obvious disabilities, excluding conditions like general obesity without a request for aid.
