Kashauna Jones v. River Park Residences, L.P., et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Residential premises liability—slip-and-fall in bathtub allegedly caused by a persistently leaking faucet; notice and the open-and-obvious defense on summary judgment.
Granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The grant of summary judgment; the complaint is reinstated and defendants' motion is denied.
Plaintiff’s lack of memory due to unconsciousness did not bar her claim where evidence supported a reasonable inference that a dripping faucet caused the fall; her affidavit did not contradict deposition testimony; defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of lack of notice given repeated oral complaints and a recent repair; and the open-and-obvious argument was inapposite because it does not negate the duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Background
Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in her bathtub, losing consciousness. She testified the bathtub faucet had been leaking even when turned off, despite repeated repair attempts since renovations began in 2012, and had been repaired approximately two weeks before the accident but continued to leak. After regaining consciousness, she observed water in the tub. Building staff maintained there were no written work orders or complaints in plaintiff’s file, but the superintendent did not address plaintiff’s and her fiancé’s repeated oral complaints, and the maintenance manager did not search for information specific to plaintiff’s apartment.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), by order entered on or about July 3, 2024, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, denying defendants' motion. The Court held that plaintiff’s inability to identify the precise cause due to unconsciousness did not warrant dismissal, as a jury could reasonably infer she slipped on water from a leaking faucet (citing Matos v Azure Holding II, L.P., 181 AD3d 406 [1st Dept 2020]). The Court found plaintiff’s affidavit noting water in the tub upon awakening did not create a feigned factual issue, as she had not been asked whether she was wet at her deposition (citing Muco v Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 203 AD3d 610 [1st Dept 2022]). Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of lack of notice: the absence of written complaints was not dispositive in light of oral complaints and a repair two weeks before the incident, and the maintenance manager did not search plaintiff’s apartment records (citing Villegas v East 191 St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 233 AD3d 636 [1st Dept 2024]). The open-and-obvious contention was inapposite because that doctrine eliminates only the duty to warn, not the duty to maintain reasonably safe premises (citing Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69 [1st Dept 2004]).
Legal Significance
Clarifies that a slip-and-fall plaintiff who was rendered unconscious need not pinpoint the exact cause if circumstantial evidence allows a reasonable inference of causation; oral complaints and recent repairs can establish actual or constructive notice despite the absence of written work orders; and the open-and-obvious doctrine does not absolve a landlord’s duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition at the summary judgment stage.
Summary judgment is improper where circumstantial evidence and testimony about ongoing leaks and recent repairs support an inference of causation and notice; lack of written complaints and an open-and-obvious hazard do not, by themselves, defeat a premises liability claim.