Tabitha Hanslick v. UG2
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability and negligence arising from storage of heavy slatwall panels at a college library; standards for summary judgment and sufficiency of expert evidence; notice and comparative negligence defenses.
Denied defendant's motion for summary judgment; granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability and dismissed defendant's first (culpable conduct) and fourth (lack of notice) affirmative defenses.
The grant of plaintiff's partial summary judgment and the dismissal of defendant's first and fourth affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff's expert did not inspect the scene or panels, relied on assumptions not in the record, contradicted photographic evidence, and offered speculative causation opinions; triable issues remain regarding negligence, causation, plaintiff's culpable conduct, and defendant's notice.
Background
Plaintiff, a librarian at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), was injured when 9–10 slatwall panels (each approximately 4 feet by 8 feet and 85 pounds) stored vertically and leaning against a wall in an FIT library storage alcove fell onto her leg as she touched them to count and inspect them. Defendant UG2, a building service contractor providing janitorial and facilities labor at the premises, delivered and stored the panels in that manner in response to a work order to place them in the rear alcove of the library.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County (Justice Richard G. Latin) denied UG2's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, dismissing UG2's first affirmative defense (plaintiff's culpable conduct) and fourth affirmative defense (lack of notice).
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order to deny plaintiff's motion in its entirety, reinstating the issues of liability and UG2's first and fourth affirmative defenses. It otherwise affirmed the denial of UG2's motion for summary judgment, without costs. The court held that plaintiff's expert opinions were conclusory, assumed facts not in the record, were not supported by photographs showing no warping of panels, and were speculative as to causation, leaving triable issues regarding negligence, notice, and plaintiff's comparative fault.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that expert affidavits supporting summary judgment must be grounded in record facts, supported by objective evidence, and address the physical circumstances of the occurrence; conclusory or speculative opinions are insufficient. It also confirms that, in premises liability cases involving contractors, comparative negligence and notice defenses should not be dismissed where factual disputes remain.
Neither party was entitled to summary judgment on liability: plaintiff's expert proof was inadequate and speculative, so issues of negligence, causation, notice, and plaintiff's culpable conduct must be tried.