Appellate Division Reinstates City Bus Slip and Fall Case
On March 16, 2016, Rachel Harrington was travelling on a S44 city bus in Staten Island. At around 1:20 P.M., the farebox of the bus began to smoke and the bus started to smell of gasoline. The bus driver instructed all passengers, including Ms. Harrington, to exit from the rear end of the bus. It is pertinent to note that this exit was a platform without steps. While getting down, Ms. Harrington slipped on a wet unidentified substance on the floor of a bus and fell outside the bus. Due to the impact from the fall, she broke seven bones in her foot. It had not rained, and the weather had been dry and sunny during the month of her accident. The bus was owned by the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter, the “NYCTA”) and therefore Ms. Harrington sued the NYCTA for damages in the Richmond County Supreme Court. NYCTA filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a dismissal of the complaint filed by Ms. Harrington.
The Lawsuit
Ms. Harrington stated that NYCTA was negligent in maintaining the upkeep of the city bus, highlighting the smoke from the farebox, the smell of the gasoline, and the slippery liquid on the floor. She contended that due to a strong smell of gasoline and smoke from the farebox, everyone got restless and wanted to quickly exit the bus. In that process, she also wanted to exit the bus and while doing so she slipped. In her testimony she could not identify what liquid she slipped on. Defendant disputed her allegations that there was a slippery liquid on the floor and used her inability to identify the slippery liquid against her. Based on this, the Defendants denied having any actual or constructive notice of the presence of a liquid causing hazardous slippery conditions in the bus. In its evidence, the Defendant provided a general pre-trip inspection report conducted on the date of the accident. The said inspection report was prepared approximately three hours before Ms. Harrington’s accident and did not contain any findings with respect to any hazardous slippery conditions.
Defendant also presented a video in evidence according to which Ms. Harrington leaped from the rear bus platform to a sidewalk outside the bus. It also used Transport Supervisor’s testimony who said that Ms. Harrington told him that she “missed a step” which caused her to slip and fall. Ms. Harrington refuted the Transport Supervisor’s testimony and maintained that she did not make any such statement. She also denied leaping from the bus, and agreed that she had rushed outside using a proper exit as there was a strong smell of gasoline and a lot of smoke was being emitted from the fare box. Based on the above, the Court noted that while the smell of gasoline and the smoke that was being emitted was a hazard for a common carrier, this was not the proximate cause of Ms. Harrington’s injuries. Additionally, the Court also held that Ms. Harrington could not prove that the Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the presence of any hazardous slippery conditions. Based on the aforesaid, the Richmond County Supreme Court on January 27, 2022 granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ms. Harrington appealed.
The Appeal
In Harrington v New York City Tr. Auth., the Appellate Court reviewed similar judgments and in its findings noted that in a slip-and-fall accident, a Defendant must show that they did not create the hazard, did not know about it, and could not have reasonably discovered and fixed it in time. To prove Defendants were not aware and did not have constructive notice of the said hazard, they must provide evidence of when the area was last cleaned or inspected before the incident. In their evidence, the Defendants provided a general pre-trip inspection report to provide for their lack of constructive notice. The Appellate Court rejected the inspection report and held that only evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question where the accident occurred would suffice as sufficient evidence to prove Defendant’s lack of awareness or constructive notice. The video evidence presented by Ms. Harrington was also rejected by the Appellate Court for not being authenticated for its origin and accuracy. Based on these findings, on January 24, 2024, the judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed and the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was dismissed. Currently, the matter is pending, and we remain committed to keeping you informed as the case progresses. We will provide another update as soon as there is significant progress to share.
Sternberg Injury Law Firm
Since 2016, Sternberg Injury Law Firm has been dedicated to handling personal injury cases, including slip-and-fall accidents, throughout New York State, including locations such as Bayville, Freeport, and Malverne. We offer free consultations to individuals who have been injured and are committed to thoroughly evaluating your case to provide the best possible support. Our experienced attorneys focus on securing the maximum compensation you deserve, so you can prioritize your recovery. Get started today by contacting us via our website, email, or phone.