We found a couple of cases involving negligent waxing and they had absolutely nothing to do with hirsutism . (Go figure.)
Rose Davies sued the City of New York claiming that her slip and fall, and the injuries that resulted therefrom, were due to "excessive waxing" of the floors of a local youth center.
According to the Appellate Division, First Department, in Davies v. City of New York , just because a floor is "shiny" does not mean the surface is dangerous or that the work in question was negligently performed.
And, since Davies's case rested solely upon her observation of the floor's condition, the AD1 did not believe that evidence sufficiently established the City's breach of its duty to maintain the premises free of conditions that would present harm.
Similarly, in Kudrov v. Laro Services Systems, Inc. , Natasha Kudrov slipped on a "shiny, slippery" floor of Manhattan's Port Authority Bus Terminal. Since Kudrov could not remember there being any water or debris, and the accident report reflected that the surface was "clean and dry," the AD1 again concluded that no liability could attach. As the appellate court observed:
Absent proof of the negligent application of wax or polish, the fact that a floor is slippery by reason of its smoothness or having been polished does not give rise to an inference of negligence ....
Unfortunately, we're unable to wax poetic about these cases.
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decisions, please use these links: Davies v. City of New York or Kudrov v. Laro Services Systems, Inc.