MacDonald v. City of Schenectady
2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8041, 761 N.Y.S.2d 752, 308 A.D.2d 125 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition on a property does not negate a landowner's general duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition; it only negates the duty to warn of that condition.
Facts:
- The City of Schenectady removed a tree stump from a sidewalk located outside premises owned by defendant Rose Nejman.
- This removal left a crack in the sidewalk, which remained unrepaired for approximately six years.
- Plaintiff encountered this cracked sidewalk daily for over a month prior to her accident.
- Plaintiff was aware of the crack's existence, having previously pointed it out to a friend.
- Plaintiff tripped on the crack and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff commenced an action against defendant Rose Nejman and defendant City of Schenectady in the Supreme Court of Schenectady County, the state's trial court.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty because the sidewalk defect was open and obvious.
- The trial court granted defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme 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 the open and obvious nature of a hazardous condition on a property negate a landowner's duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Spain, J.
No. The open and obvious nature of an allegedly dangerous condition does not, standing alone, necessarily obviate a landowner’s duty to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition. The court distinguished between a landowner's duty to warn of latent hazards and the broader duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe state. While the obviousness of a defect negates the need for a warning (as the condition is its own warning), this rationale does not extend to the duty of maintenance. To hold otherwise would permit landowners to ignore extremely hazardous conditions simply because they are apparent. The court, guided by the Court of Appeals' reasoning in Tagle v. Jakob, held that the obviousness of a danger is a factor for the jury to consider when assessing foreseeability and the plaintiff's comparative negligence, but it does not eliminate the landowner's duty of care as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and shifts the law within this appellate division, explicitly departing from its prior holdings that conflated the duty to warn and the duty to maintain. It establishes that the 'open and obvious' doctrine is not a complete bar to a premises liability claim based on negligent maintenance. The ruling reinforces that a landowner has a persistent duty to address foreseeable hazards, preventing defendants from obtaining summary judgment merely by showing a danger was visible. Consequently, more cases involving obvious hazards are likely to proceed to a jury to weigh the reasonableness of the landowner's conduct against the plaintiff's comparative fault.
