Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

Under New York law, a homeowner has a duty to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition and there is no duty to warn of or protect against conditions that are not inherently dangerous and are “open and obvious.” Courts address the issue of liability on a case-by-case basis and have generally taken a reasonable approach in cases involving open and obvious household items.

For example, in <em><a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Villalba-v.-Daughney.pdf">Villalba v. Daughney</a>,</em> plaintiff alleged to have tripped and fell over a mat on the front stoop of the defendant’s home. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant and the Appellate Division, Second Department addressed the question of whether the mat was considered a dangerous condition.

In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Second Department stated that “[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability 'depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury'". However, summary judgment in favor of a defendant is appropriate where a plaintiff fails to submit any evidence that a particular condition is actually defective or dangerous". In holding that the summary judgment decision was proper, the court ruled that the mat was “not in a defective condition”, was “open and obvious”, and was not inherently dangerous.

This decision serves as a reminder that not all fall down accidents involve liability, and plaintiffs must prove that a dangerous condition existed, and that the property owner created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence. Household items which are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous should not give rise to premises liability.

Please contact <a href="cmorgenstern@wcmlaw.com">Corey Morgenstern</a> with any questions.