From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bruning v. Shevlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 1991
178 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 23, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.).


Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as withdrawn; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The seven-year-old plaintiff was taken by her aunt to the home of the defendants, from whom the aunt had agreed to rent an apartment. While playing in the defendants' backyard, the infant plaintiff fell off a bicycle and into a cement stairwell, sustaining injuries. Several days before the accident, the defendant Michael Shevlin had removed an old railing from around the stairwell in preparation for the installation of a new one and temporarily replaced it with two 2 X 4 wood beams supported by two logs. In rendering a verdict in favor of the defendants, the jury found that the premises were not in a reasonably safe condition, but that the defendants were not negligent.

Contrary to the contention on appeal, it was not reversible error for the trial court to have charged the jury that in deciding whether the defendants were negligent it could consider whether the infant plaintiff was a trespasser. There was conflicting evidence at trial as to whether the infant plaintiff had the defendants' permission to play in the backyard. Furthermore, while the owner of the property has a duty to use reasonable care under the circumstances regardless of whether the potential plaintiff is an invitee, licensee or trespasser upon the property (see, Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 N.Y.2d 26; Basso v Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233), a potential plaintiff's status is nonetheless relevant to the issue of foreseeability of his or her presence on the property. In its charge the court correctly instructed the jury on those rules (see, PJI 2:90.2 [Supp]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs' further contention, we find that the verdict was not inconsistent or against the weight of the evidence. Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bruning v. Shevlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 1991
178 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Bruning v. Shevlin

Case Details

Full title:NICOLE BRUNING et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. MICHAEL SHEVLIN et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 23, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
577 N.Y.S.2d 472

Citing Cases

M.N. v. Suffolk Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

The County argues that it has such a defense: it is purportedly immune from liability for its alleged…