top of page

News

Obscured Open and Obvious Condition May Be a Trap for the Unwary (NY)

November 8, 2018

Share to:

<p style="text-align: justify;">Plaintiff tripped and fell on a “hump” on a baseball field in the Town of Smithtown and injured himself as he was attempting to move through the entrance of the field. This “hump” was caused by the Town’s installation of a drain, which was covered with asphalt. This hump extended to the area between the players' benches and the entrance to the field on the third base side.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Plaintiff sued the Town of Smithtown in Suffolk County Supreme Court. Smithtown moved for summary judgment, contending that the condition of the hump was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In <a href="http://blog.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Dillon-v-Town-of-Smithtown.pdf">Dillon v Town of Smithtown</a>, the Appellate Division confirmed the duty of landowner is to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition.  And the Appellate Division confirmed that an exception to this duty exists when there is an open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous condition.  Further expanding on the “open and obvious” principle, the Appellate Division held that a condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of their senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Applying that distinction to the facts of this case, the appellate court found that the Town failed to prove that the hump was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous given the surrounding circumstances at the time of the accident.  In reversing the Supreme Court’s summary judgment decision the court highlighted plaintiff's testimony that at the time of the accident, the hump was completely covered with dirt and sand and players were standing around it, thus obscuring his view of the hump.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The case highlights the reality that certain defenses, such as the open and obvious defense and other issues of fact need to be resolved by appellate courts, rather than the trial courts. Litigators presented with such issues should be prepared at an early stage to be mindful of the possibility of appellate practice.</p>
Thanks to George Parpas for his contribution to this post.

Headshot of Staff Member
Button
Button
Button
Button

Contact

bottom of page