Ginsburg v. City of Ithaca
839 F. Supp. 2d 537
N.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Bradley Ginsburg, an 18-year-old Cornell freshman, died by jumping from the Thurston Avenue Bridge on Feb 17, 2010.
- The bridge is owned by Ithaca; Cornell exerts extensive control over its design, safety, and operation.
- From 1990 to 2010, 29 people attempted suicide from area bridges; 27 were successful, with many Cornell students among the deceased.
- Ithaca and Cornell redesigned the bridge in 2006-2007, but only raised and curved the side railings; no other safety features were added.
- Plaintiff alleges failure to implement adequate suicide-prevention measures; discovery is stayed pending rulings on 12(c)/56 motions; the court will not convert to summary judgment at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and foreseeability of suicide on the bridge | Ginsburg asserts Cornell/Ithaca owed a duty to prevent suicides on a known risky bridge. | Ithaca/Cornell contend no duty since suicide by Bradley was unforeseeable. | Duty found; foreseeability shown by history of suicides and risk to students. |
| Unreasonably dangerous condition despite redesign | Redesign failed to eliminate risk; ongoing danger renders condition unreasonable. | Redesign complied with safety standards; no dangerous condition remained. | Question of danger remains; factual dispute about post-redesign safety survives at pleadings stage. |
| Independent, superseding act breaking causal chain | Bradley's act of jumping was not superseding; risk remained due to prior duty. | Bradley’s act is an intervening superseding act severing liability. | Bradley’s act not superseding; liability not barred at this stage. |
| Liability of individual Cornell defendants | Individual Cornell defendants engaged in oversight; may bear liability. | Individual defendants had no control over the bridge or Bradley; no autonoous liability. | Claims against individual Cornell defendants dismissed. |
| Punitive damages against individual defendants | Punitive damages may be warranted given conduct. | No basis for punitive damages against individuals or Ithaca/Cornell as entities. | Punitive damages claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (claims must be supported by factual allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausible claims, not mere conclusory statements)
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) (documents attached to a complaint may be considered if integral and authentic)
- In re Kush v. City of Buffalo, 59 N.Y.2d 26 (N.Y. 1983) (landowner duty to maintain property in a safe condition with known hazards)
- Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2001) (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions in federal court)