Summary
noting plaintiff saw and tried to walk around, but tripped over, `readily observable' forklift parked in marked stall
Summary of this case from Suriano v. Sears Roebuck Co.Opinion
Submitted November 16, 2000.
December 12, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 1, 1999, as granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Fine Hummel, P.C., Huntington, N.Y. (Ralph A. Hummel of counsel), for appellants.
Epstein, Hill, Grammatico Gann, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Lillian M. Kennedy of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The injured plaintiff tripped and fell over the prongs of a forklift which were allegedly raised four inches off the ground. The forklift was parked in a marked stall in the parking lot of the defendant's store. The evidence disclosed that the forklift was in plain view, and that the injured plaintiff saw it and moved away to avoid it. On these facts, the Supreme Court correctly concluded, as a matter of law, that the forklift, whether its prongs were raised or lowered, did not constitute an inherently dangerous condition, was not a trap for the unwary, and was readily observable by the reasonable use of the injured plaintiff's senses (see, Chiranky v. Marshalls, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 266; Speirs v. Dick's Clothing Sporting Goods, 268 A.D.2d 581; Boehme v. Edgar Fabrics, 248 A.D.2d 344; Binensztok v. Marshall Stores, 228 A.D.2d 534; Russell v. Archer Bldg. Ctrs., 219 A.D.2d 772). Under those circumstances, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant.