PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED
After her personal injury case was dismissed pursuant to the “storm-in-progress” rule, TW appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department.
On its review of the dispute, the AD1 noted that the defendants had presented sufficient evidence (“certified climatological records”) which evinced that it was snowing at the time of TW’s accident. (Apparently, there was “heavy snow” underway at that time.)
Apparently, in response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment – pre-trial relief in their favor – TW was unable to “raise an issue of fact.” Her arguments that the defendants’ failure to adhere to their internal snow and ice removal procedures fell on deaf ears, as the AD1 thought such an omission or lapse was not dispositive absent TW’s showing of “detrimental reliance.”
Her contentions that the defendants made the conditions worse by negligently removing the accumulated snow or that there was ice on the sidewalk prior to the snowfall were found to be “speculative” and lacking evidentiary support.
Given that record, the dismissal was “unanimously affirmed.”
Was this case like roasting snow in a furnace?
# # #
DECISION