In New York, slip and fall accidents usually involvepersonal injury claims against property owners. Let’s say it is winter and you have just left the grocery store. There are a few inches of snow on the ground but the path into and out of the store appears clear. So you start to leave the store. Suddenly, you slip on a patch of ice. You fall to the ground and break your leg.
Under New York law, if you can prove the store owner was negligent in not identifying and treating that patch of ice before you fell, you can recover damages to cover your medical bills and other losses arising from your fall. In practical terms, it is usually the store’s commercial liability insurer that actually pays for these kinds of personal injury judgments and settlements. Similarly, if you are injured in a slip and fall accident while visiting someone else’s residence, their homeowner’s insurance policy is usually responsible for any damages.
Appellate Division Rebuffs Progressive’s Attempt to Avoid Defending Driver
But what about a situation where you are visiting someone’s house and slip and fall while exiting another person’s vehicle? Could you also pursue a personal injury claim against the driver or owner of the vehicle? More to the point, would the driver’s auto insurance cover such a claim?
A New York appellate court recently addressed these questions. The case before the court, Matter of Progressive Drive Insurance v. Malone, involved a woman (the plaintiff) injured in a slip and fall accident while exiting a car driven by the father of her minor children.
On the day in question, the father drove his father’s vehicle to drop the children off with the plaintiff. The vehicle itself was insured by Progressive. After arriving at the residence where the plaintiff was staying, one of the children exited the car and went into the house. The plaintiff then went to the car to retrieve her younger child. At the time, there were approximately 2 to 3 inches of snow on the ground.
The father parked the vehicle on the street. The plaintiff entered the vehicle, sat in the passenger seat, and spoke to the father for several minutes. The plaintiff then got out of the vehicle, retrieved her sleeping child from the back seat, and started to walk away. As she did, the plaintiff slipped on a patch of ice and fell to the ground.
The plaintiff subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit alleging premises liability against the owners of the house for not clearing the path to the house of ice and show. She also sued the father and his father (as the vehicle’s owner) for negligently failing to park the vehicle “with a safe place to alight.” As the appellate court put it, the plaintiff’s claim against the father was based on her allegation that he did not “properly position [his] vehicle for passengers disembarking by parking on a slippery and dangerous area.”
Progressive, as the vehicle’s insurer, then initiated its own claim. It asked the Supreme Court to declare it had no duty to defend or indemnify the father against the plaintiff’s claims, because this was not a covered motor vehicle accident. The Supreme Court denied Progressive’s request, however, prompting an appeal.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the trial court’s ruling. By a 4-1 vote, the Second Department held the plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged that the father’s insured vehicle was used negligently and that such negligence contributed to the accident.” As such, Progressive had to defend the father against the plaintiff’s lawsuit and potentially pay her any damages recovered, subject to the limits of the policy.
The dissenting judge maintained, however, that New York law required proof that the plaintiff’s injury arose “rom the use or operation of the covered vehicle.” In theory, that can support a personal injury claim based on parking a vehicle in an unsafe exit spot. But in the dissent’s view, there was no evidence that the father knew it was unsafe to park his car where he did. To the contrary, the evidence showed the father parked in the only place he could, and that he had no reason to believe it was unsafe for people to exit the vehicle from that location.
3 Things to Know About New York Slip and Fall Accidents Involving Ice and Snow
Slip and fall accidents on snow and ice are quite common here in upstate New York. If you are ever injured in such an accident while on someone else’s property, here are a few things to keep in mind:
- A property owner is generally not responsible for injuries that occur while a storm is “in progress.” While a property owner does have a legal duty to clear their parking lots, entrances, and exits of snow and ice once a storm passes, they are entitled to “reasonable time” to act.
- Slip and fall claims involving “black ice” are especially tricky to prove, as neither the victim nor the property owner may have known about the hazard beforehand.
- In general, a slip and fall victim cannot directly sue a contractor hired by the property owner to remove snow or ice. In other words, if you were injured in a parking lot that was not properly plowed by a contractor, you cannot directly sue the contractor. But the property owner may have a third-party claim against the contractor to recover any compensation it had to pay you.
If you are injured in a slip and fall accident, you should not count on the property owner or their insurance company to pay for your medical bills, lost income, and other out-of-pocket losses without putting up a legal fight. Our New York personal injury attorneys can review your accident and advise you on an appropriate course of action.Contact Larson & Gallivan Law today to schedule a free consultation.