Gallo v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 36 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
When reasonable people could reach different conclusions based on the evidence, the question of negligence, including contributory negligence, is a matter for the jury to decide.
Summary
A 72-year-old woman, Gallo, was injured when she tried to step across a hole in the sidewalk caused by Supermarkets General Corporation’s repaving work. The defendant failed to provide warnings or cover the hole. The Appellate Division reversed a jury verdict for Gallo, finding her contributorily negligent as a matter of law because she knew of the hole and had an alternate route. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the questions of negligence and contributory negligence were for the jury because reasonable people could disagree about whether her actions constituted negligence.
Facts
The plaintiff, Gallo, a 72-year-old woman, was injured when she attempted to step across a hole in the sidewalk. The hole was located on the inside of the curb edge at a crosswalk. The hole was about a foot and a half wide and three or four inches deep. The defendant, Supermarkets General Corporation, caused the hole during repaving work in a seven-block area. The defendant failed to place any warning signs around the hole. The defendant failed to cover the hole. The plaintiff was returning from shopping when the injury occurred. The plaintiff was trying to find an unbroken portion of the sidewalk to cross at the corner rather than in the middle of the block.
Procedural History
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Gallo. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the jury verdict. The Appellate Division dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law when she attempted to cross a sidewalk defect that she knew existed, and when an alternative route was available?
Holding
No, because the plaintiff’s knowledge of the danger and the presence of an alternate route were circumstances from which the jury might or might not infer negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the issues of the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence were questions of fact for the jury to determine. The court cited Meyer v. West End Equities and Cesario v. Chiapparine to support its position that the plaintiff’s knowledge of the danger and the availability of an alternate route were factors that the jury could consider, but that did not automatically establish contributory negligence as a matter of law. The court stated that “plaintiff’s knowledge of the danger and the presence of an alternate route were circumstances from which the jury might or might not infer negligence on the part of the plaintiff.” Because reasonable people could disagree about whether the plaintiff’s actions constituted negligence, the court held that the Appellate Division erred in finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals emphasized that the role of the jury is to weigh the evidence and draw inferences, and it is only when no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff that a court can direct a verdict.