In Yarborough v. City of New York , Kashawn Yarborough sued the City of New York after sustaining serious injuries when he tripped and fell in a Brooklyn pothole.
According to the City's Pothole Law, the municipality must have prior written notice of the dangerous condition in order to incur liability. Without that notice, the burden then shifts to the injured party to show that the City affirmatively created the defect.
Although Yarborough agreed that the City had been unaware of the pothole, his experts were of the opinion that the hole had been patched in an uneven manner, creating a "secondary tripping hazard." (Yarborough's experts further speculated that the patching eroded because the work had not been properly sealed.)
When its request to dismiss the case was denied by the Kings County Supreme Court, the City appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department. And, since Yarborough was unable to show that the Big Apple's repair work created an "immediate hazard," the AD2 reversed and dismissed.
On appeal to our state's highest court, the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding that the City's negligence must "immediately result" in a dangerous condition, and that the deterioration of the asphalt patch which eventually caused Yarborough's injury, "developed over time with environmental wear and tear."
Should Yarborough have taken the fall, or did his legal team trip up?
To download a copy of the Court of Appeals Decision, please use this link: Yarborough v. City of New York