Shaw v Town of Brookhaven
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability on municipal park property—application of the 'open and obvious' and 'inherently dangerous' doctrines at the summary judgment stage.
Granted the Town's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, finding the chain across the walkway was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.
The order granting summary judgment to the Town and dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact through expert evidence that the chain blended with the background and was obscured by shadow patterns, and through testimony that visibility tabs were often removed—precluding a determination as a matter of law that the condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.
Background
In November 2020, Richard Shaw was riding a Onewheel (a single‑wheel motorized skateboard) in a Town of Brookhaven park when he struck a metal chain suspended between two wooden posts that blocked vehicular access from a parking lot to a concrete walkway. Shaw and his spouse (derivative claim) sued the Town for personal injuries, alleging negligent maintenance and failure to warn. The Town argued the chain was an open and obvious condition and not inherently dangerous.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County (James F. Quinn, J.), granted the Town's motion for summary judgment, holding that the chain was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, and dismissed the complaint.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed and denied the Town's motion. Although the Town made a prima facie showing that the chain was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, plaintiffs' expert report and record evidence created triable issues of fact: the chain was visually inconspicuous because it blended with its surroundings and was obscured by prominent shadow patterns, and Town employees acknowledged that yellow caution tabs intended to increase visibility were repeatedly removed. Given the totality of circumstances, whether the condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous could not be decided as a matter of law.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that whether a condition is 'open and obvious' and not inherently dangerous is highly fact-specific and must be assessed in context, including visual conspicuity and surrounding lighting/shadow conditions. Expert testimony on visual perception can defeat summary judgment, even where a barrier is generally visible. Municipal landowners, like private owners, have a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises; attempts to enhance visibility (and evidence those measures were compromised) may support a triable issue on notice and hazard.
Barriers such as chains across access points are not necessarily open and obvious as a matter of law; evidence that the condition was visually inconspicuous under the circumstances creates a jury question and defeats summary judgment.