122 A.D.3d 903
N.Y. App. Div.2014Background
- Plaintiff Jacqueline Espinal slipped and fell on a staircase at Six Flags Great Adventure (New Jersey), alleging a loose metal plate and a missing screw on a tread caused her fall.
- After the fall she observed the loose metal plate and apparent missing screw on the step where she fell.
- Defendants (Six Flags and related parties) submitted evidence that they had received no prior complaints about the staircase and that employees inspected the staircase twice earlier on the day of the accident and found it intact.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend the bill of particulars to plead a res ipsa loquitur theory.
- Supreme Court (Queens County) granted defendants’ summary judgment motion and denied leave to amend; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants created or had actual/constructive notice of a hazardous condition on the stair | Espinal contended the loose plate/missing screw caused the fall, implying defendants were negligent | Defendants argued they neither created nor had notice (no complaints; two inspections that day found the staircase intact) | Court held defendants met their prima facie burden; plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of notice or creation of the hazard |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies | Espinal sought to amend to plead res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence from the accident circumstances | Defendants implicitly opposed; argued facts did not support applying res ipsa loquitur | Court held res ipsa loquitur inapplicable and denied leave to amend as the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient or devoid of merit |
| Whether plaintiff raised a triable issue opposing summary judgment | Espinal relied on post-accident observation of a loose plate/screw and her account of the fall | Defendants relied on lack of complaints and contemporaneous inspections showing no defect | Court held plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether leave to amend bill of particulars should be granted | Espinal sought to add res ipsa theory after summary judgment motion | Defendants relied on insufficiency and lack of merit of the proposed amendment | Court denied leave to amend under CPLR 3025(b) because amendment was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320 (1986) (summary judgment prima facie burden and proof standards)
- Khan v. Singh, 200 N.J. 82 (2010) (limitations on application of res ipsa loquitur)
- Szalontai v. Yazbo's Sports Cafe, 183 N.J. 386 (2005) (res ipsa loquitur requirements in slip-and-fall cases)
- Eaton v. Eaton, 119 N.J. 628 (1990) (discussing when res ipsa loquitur does not apply)