TRIVIAL PURSUIT?
After C.D. tripped and fell in a parking lot owned by N&P USA Realty, he filed a personal-injury lawsuit seeking to recover damages.
Alleging that the defect was trivial, and non-actionable, the landlord sought to dismiss the case, and the Queens County Supreme Court granted that request.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that any defect that isn’t a “trap or nuisance,” and which is “trivial” in nature, will not support the maintenance of a negligence case. To that end, courts will review such factors as the "`width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury." To escape liability, the condition must be “physically insignificant,” and its characteristics, or the surrounding circumstances, must not increase the risks posed.
Since this landowner satisfied the governing test, and C.D. failed to present a competent rebuttal, the case’s dismissal was left undisturbed.
Doesn’t that all strike you as rather trivial?
# # #
DECISION