If you didn't cause the accident and don't "own, lease, occupy or control" that part of the property on which an accident has occurred, it's likely that you will not be responsible for any damages an injured individual has suffered.
By way of example. in Richardson v. Lenox Terrace Development Associates , Lenox Terrace Pharmacy, Inc., d/b/a Lenox Terrace Drugs (Lenox Drugs), a tenant in a building owned by Lenox Terrace Development Associates, was not getting any heat, so Willie Richardson, a ConEd employee, was sent to the building to investigate the problem.
John Gorham, a drug store employee, escorted Richardson to the building's roof and, while accessing the attic area, Richardson reportedly fell through a hatchway (or down a flight of folding steps) to the floor below.
When Richardson later filed suit, Lenox Drugs sought dismissal of the case on the grounds that it owed no duty to the ConEd employee. While the New York County Supreme Court denied that request, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed on appeal.
Since Lenox Drugs did not "own, lease, occupy or control" the area in question, it was not liable for Richardson's injury even though he had been accompanied by the tenant's employee. As the AD1 noted, absent special circumstances which did not exist in this case, Richardson did not have a claim against the drug store:
A defendant can be held liable for breach of an "assumed duty" only where the plaintiff "show[s] reliance on the defendant's course of conduct, such that the defendant's conduct placed him or her in a more vulnerable position than he or she would otherwise have been in had the defendant done nothing" ... In this case, Gorham's agreement to accompany Richardson to the areas to which he needed access to perform his job did not expose Richardson to any new risk or enhance any existing risk, since Richardson would have entered the premises even if Gorham had not accompanied him. Further, Richardson, who carried his own flashlight and was fully aware of the alleged placement of the board over the hatchway, does not allege that he relied for his personal safety on anything Gorham did or said.
We're not sure we agree with this decision.
Isn't a "follower" more likely to rely on an escort (who is purportedly familiar with the premises) to point out any areas that may pose a danger or present a likelihood of injury?
Poor Willie.
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Richardson v. Lenox Terrace Development Associates