Kaufman v. Silver, 90 N.Y.2d 204 (1997)
The special use doctrine, which can impose liability on a landowner for a dangerous condition on adjacent property, requires the landowner to exercise control over the use of that property and derive a special benefit from it.
Summary
Barbara Kaufman was injured when she tripped on a defective ramp located on property adjacent to a shopping center owned by the defendants. She sued, arguing the defendants had a duty to maintain the ramp under the special use doctrine because it served handicapped parking spaces for their shopping center. The New York Court of Appeals held that the special use doctrine did not apply because the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants exercised control over the ramp or had access to it for repairs. The Court clarified that control over the special use is a crucial element for imposing liability under this doctrine, especially when the structure is located on privately owned, adjacent property.
Facts
Barbara Kaufman fell on a defective asphalt ramp located outside the South Bellmore Shopping Center, owned by the defendants. The ramp was situated on the adjacent property owned by Pergament Home Center. Kaufman had just exited a store in the shopping center and was walking towards her car when she tripped on the ramp. The ramp provided access to handicapped parking spaces.
Procedural History
Kaufman and her husband sued the shopping center owners for negligence. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the special use doctrine can be applied to impose liability on a landowner for a dangerous condition on adjacent, privately-owned property when the landowner does not exercise control over that property.
Holding
No, because the imposition of a duty to repair or maintain a use located on adjacent property is premised upon the existence of the abutting land occupier’s access to and ability to exercise control over the special use structure or installation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court explained that the special use doctrine typically applies when a landowner derives a special benefit from public property unrelated to the public use, thus requiring them to maintain the property in a safe condition. The Court emphasized that control over the special use is crucial for imposing a duty to repair and maintain. “The doctrine of implied duty [to repair a special use structure] requires the person who, even with due permission, constructs a scuttle hole in the sidewalk in front of his premises, to use reasonable care for the safety of the public, as long as it remains there and is subject to his control” (Trustees of Vil. of Canandaigua v Foster, 156 NY, at 359). The Court distinguished this case from situations involving public streets or sidewalks, where access and control are more easily established. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants exercised control over the ramp, had access to make repairs, or that the ramp was installed at the defendants’ request for their exclusive benefit. Therefore, summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.