From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stirpe v. T.J. Maloney Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 23, 1998
252 A.D.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

holding doctrine inapplicable to case of employee who slipped and fell on ice outside the building where she worked

Summary of this case from Michalski v. the Home Depot

Opinion

July 23, 1998

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.).


On January 19, 1994, plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant Schenectady County Community College (hereinafter SCCC), slipped and fell, injuring herself, on a patch of ice outside the building where she was employed. Several days earlier, there had been a water main break outside the entrance to this building and SCCC had hired defendant to repair the damage. Although defendant constructed a snow fence around the work site, plaintiff claimed she slipped on ice which had extended beyond the barricade onto the blacktop for several feet, a condition which plaintiff was concededly aware of. Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action and after issue was joined, defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied, prompting this appeal.

There must be an affirmance. Defendant argues that plaintiff allegedly assumed the risk of injury when she proceeded to walk in the area where she knew ice had formed rather than take another available exit. It is well settled that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk which, if applicable, would operate as a complete bar to an injured plaintiff's claim, "is limited to plaintiffs injured while voluntarily participating in a sporting or entertainment activity" ( Comeau v. Wray, 241 A.D.2d 602, 604). Since the doctrine is clearly not applicable here, the comparative negligence statute applies ( see, CPLR 1411), which "merely reduces the plaintiffs recovery in the proportion which his or her conduct bears to the defendant's culpable conduct" ( Cohen v. Heritage Motor Tours, 205 A.D.2d 105, 108), a determination which must be left to the jury.

Finally, since the remaining argument advanced by defendant was not raised in its pleadings or motion papers before Supreme Court, it is not properly before this Court for review ( see, Sam v. Town of Rotterdam, 248 A.D.2d 850, 851-852, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 804).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with. costs.


Summaries of

Stirpe v. T.J. Maloney Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 23, 1998
252 A.D.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

holding doctrine inapplicable to case of employee who slipped and fell on ice outside the building where she worked

Summary of this case from Michalski v. the Home Depot
Case details for

Stirpe v. T.J. Maloney Sons, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:VIVIAN D. STIRPE, Respondent, v. T.J. MALONEY SONS, INC., Appellant. (And…

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

Date published: Jul 23, 1998

Citations

252 A.D.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 709

Citing Cases

Gioeli v. United States

The court notes, however, that even where a plaintiff has not assumed the risk so as to bar recovery under…

Trupia v. Lake George Cent

Particularly relevant here, we note that "[t]he policy underlying this tort rule is intended to facilitate…