52 A.D.2d 933 (N.Y. 1977)
The duty of care owed by a property owner to an individual on their property extends to reasonably foreseeable accidents and requires the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances.
Summary
Parish, an advertising agency employee, was injured on Henneberry Road Farms while taking promotional photographs. He fell through a hole in a barn floor while retrieving a ladder. The central issue was whether the accident was reasonably foreseeable by the farm corporation and if the corporation exercised reasonable care. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of Parish, holding that the accident’s foreseeability and the defendant’s exercise of reasonable care were properly questions for the jury to decide. The court emphasized that the jury’s resolution of these issues should not be disturbed.
Facts
Parish, an employee of an advertising agency, visited Henneberry Road Farms to take promotional photographs of an Agway petroleum truck delivering fuel oil, with a milk delivery truck in the background.
The farm was leased to and operated by Henneberry Road Farms, Inc.
Parish and a coworker went to the barn to retrieve a ladder to gain a better vantage point for the photographs by climbing a tree.
While removing the ladder, Parish fell through a hole or hatchway in the barn floor and sustained serious injuries.
The farm’s president and vice-president, who were also stockholders and patrons of Agway, had agreed to cooperate with the photo project.
Procedural History
The case was initially heard in a trial court where a jury found in favor of Parish.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the accident on the defendant’s property was reasonably foreseeable by the corporate defendant under the circumstances.
2. Whether the corporate defendant exercised reasonable care under the circumstances, considering the foreseeability of the accident.
Holding
1. Yes, because questions of fact were presented as to whether the accident was reasonably foreseeable.
2. Yes, because questions of fact were presented as to whether the corporate defendant exercised reasonable care in light of the foreseeability of the accident.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the central questions of foreseeability and the exercise of reasonable care were properly presented to the jury as questions of fact. The court relied on the principles established in Basso v. Miller, which shifted away from rigid common-law classifications of entrants onto property. The court emphasized the importance of considering all circumstances to determine whether the accident was reasonably foreseeable and whether the defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent it. The court deferred to the jury’s determination, finding no basis to disturb their resolution of the factual issues. The concurring opinion suggested that Parish could be considered an invitee, which would entitle him to a high duty of care, and that it was a question of fact whether Parish exceeded the scope of his invitation when he went into the barn. The court did not explicitly define the exact duty of care owed, but implied it was linked to the foreseeability of the harm and the reasonableness of the defendant’s actions to prevent it.