top of page

News

Tragedy At CitiField Does Not Create An Unreasonable Duty To The Property Owner (NY)

March 11, 2022

Share to:

<p style="text-align: justify;">Antonio <a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Narainasami.pdf">Narainasami</a>, decedent, and his friends attended a New York Mets baseball game at Citi Field, and like many New York Mets fans, they decided to leave the game early by the 8th inning, and headed toward the escalators.  The escalators had been turned off at the end of the 7th inning and barricades had been placed to prevent patrons from walking down the escalators and redirected them to the exit ramps. Decedent and his friends decided to walk down the “stopped” escalators, and unfortunately during their descent, the Decedent fell down 50 feet and died. Plaintiff’s administrator sued the New York Mets alleging they breached a duty to maintain the safety of public patrons on its property. However, the property owner was granted summary judgment and plaintiff appealed. "Landowners generally owe a duty of care to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, and are liable for injuries caused by a breach of this duty." (Henry v. Hamilton Equities, Inc., 34 N.Y.3d 136). The court also stated, “where members of the public are invited onto the premises, the owner has 'a nondelegable duty to provide the public with a reasonably safe premises and a safe means of ingress and egress'" (Cox v. 118 E. 60th Owners, Inc., 189 A.D.3d 1169, 1170)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The court reiterated the the scope of a landowner's duty extends to maintaining its property "in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk" but "there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous". A stationary escalator is not inherently dangerous. (see Adamo v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 71 A.D.3d 557, 558; Schurr v. Port Auth. of N.Y. &amp; N.J., 307 A.D.2d 837, 838; see also Roberts v. Old Navy, 134 A.D.3d 1088; Jaikran v. Shoppers Jamaica, LLC, 85 A.D.3d 864, 867). The Second Department affirmed the trial court’s ruling holding that defendants submitted evidence that the escalators were not defective, and plaintiff failed to offer any evidence demonstrating defendants’ failed to comply with applicable statutes and regulations concerning the escalators. Plaintiff further argued that defendants failed to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers. However, the court opined that there was little else the stadium personnel could have done, other than placing security personal in front of every escalator egress, which would have been an “unreasonable burden”. Plaintiff alleged the stadium failed in their duty to provide a safe means of ingress and egress for the public, but the Second Department held that defendants demonstrated the barricades and directing patrons to the exits ramps with announcements and security personnel was sufficient to satisfy the duty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This case reiterates non-delegable duties by landowners over the public patrons that come upon their property. While a property owner who sees high-traffic events and a high volume of public patrons must ensure that there are several safe and approachable entrances/exits for the patrons, they also must be wary of unforeseen dangers and demonstrate they have done everything reasonable to mitigate that danger to the public. Moreover, the property owner must maintain security personnel, clear signs, and barricades to prevent public patrons from approaching un-safe or undesignated areas on the property.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thanks to Raymond Gonzalez for contribution to this post.  Should you have any question, please feel free to contact <a href="mailto:tbracken@wcmlaw.com">Tom Bracken</a>.</p>

Contact

bottom of page