February 16th, 2007

New York City Transit Authority Found Liable in Fall Down Non-Owned Stairs

New York City’s Transit Authority was found liable yesterday by the Court of Appeals, for a trip and fall accident on subway stairs it neither owns nor controls.

A 4-1 majority of the high court adopted a 101-year old “Schlesinger rule” that imposes on common carriers a duty to provide safe ingress and egress on approaches that are “constantly and notoriously used.”

The court wrote:

Where, as here, a stairwell or approach is primarily used as a means of access to and egress from the common carrier, that carrier has a duty to exercise reasonable care to see that such means of approach remain in a safe condition or, where appropriate, to take such precautions or give such warnings as would protect those using such area against unforeseen danger.

In the case before us, the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish that the stairway in question was used primarily as a means of access to and from the subway. Therefore, defendants had a duty to maintain the stairway or to warn patrons of any dangerous condition. So imperative is the duty to provide a safe means of access to and from the subway that such duty may not be delegated to another. Thus, even if the responsibility to maintain the stairway resides in another entity, defendants may not avoid their responsibility “to at least provide against injury to its passengers by erecting such barricades, or giving such warning, as [would] guard against accidents.

The decision in Bingham v. New York City Transit Authority is here.

 

February 15th, 2007

Slip and Fall — Attorney Disqualified From Representing Wife

A Nassau County slip and fall case ran aground when the laywer-husband of the injuried plaintiff was found to be in violation of an ethical rule. The accident occurred in the parking lot of a restaurant. The husband had a loss of consortium claim and appeared pro se, and also sought to represent his wife.

It seems, however, that he was not only the husband but also a witness to the accident. While he could represent himself pro se, he could not represent his wife since that violates the lawyer-witness rule, DR 5-102 1:

A lawyer shall not act, or accept employment that contemplates the lawyer’s acting, as an advocate on issues of fact before any tribunal if the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the lawyer ought to be called as a witness on a significant issue on behalf of the client.

The attorney tried to get around this by saying that he was not employed as the attorney of record for his wife, that his wife was also pro se, and that he had a power of attorney to appear at conferences for her. The court rejected this rather creative argument.

A nice exposition on the law by Justice Lamarca in Nassau. The case is Smolensky v. T.G.I. Fridays.

  1. 21