Gallagher v. St. Raymond’s Roman Catholic Church, 21 N.Y.2d 554 (1968)
A landlord can be held liable for negligence when their affirmative act creates a dangerous condition on a common area of the property, regardless of notice.
Summary
Gallagher, a tenant, sued St. Raymond’s Roman Catholic Church, her landlord, for injuries sustained when she slipped and fell on wet steps. The water came from a hose placed by the landlord to deter loitering. The trial court dismissed the complaint, likening the condition to a natural rain event. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the landlord’s deliberate act of creating the watery condition distinguished it from naturally occurring hazards. The Court emphasized that the landlord’s liability stemmed from the creation of the dangerous condition, not from a failure to address a naturally occurring one.
Facts
Plaintiff was a tenant in an eight-family building owned by the defendant, St. Raymond’s Roman Catholic Church.
The plaintiff fell on the marble steps leading out of the building. The steps were wet because the defendant placed a garden hose, which protruded from a second-story window directly over the stairway, to spray water on the steps. The defendant intentionally created the waterfall to prevent people from sitting on the steps. The plaintiff testified she walked carefully but still slipped and fell due to the water. A police officer corroborated that the steps were entirely wet.
Procedural History
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint at the close of her proof, finding a failure to establish actionable negligence.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case requiring submission of the issues to a jury.
Issue(s)
Whether a landlord is liable for injuries sustained by a tenant who slipped and fell on a common stairway made slippery by the landlord’s deliberate act of spraying water on the steps.
Holding
Yes, because the landlord’s liability is based on their affirmative act in creating a dangerous condition, not on a failure to remedy a condition arising from natural causes or a failure to provide notice of a dangerous condition.
Court’s Reasoning
The court distinguished this case from slip-and-fall cases involving naturally occurring conditions, such as rain. The court emphasized that the landlord created the dangerous condition by intentionally spraying water on the steps. The court stated, “Neither his duty nor his potential liability is to be predicated upon his ‘permitting’ a dangerous condition to exist, but rather is based upon his own affirmative act in creating the condition complained of.” Unlike conditions caused by weather, the landlord had control over the presence of water on the steps. The Court reasoned that the landlord had a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure the steps were safe, and deliberately creating a hazardous condition breached that duty. The court found that the issues of negligence, causation, and damages were for the jury to decide, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The Court also noted that because the defendant created the condition, usual questions of notice were irrelevant. The court explicitly rejected the trial court’s reliance on Kraus v. Wolf, stating that case involved a wet condition caused by natural causes, while the instant case involved a condition intentionally created by the landlord. The court noted that a landlord has a duty to use reasonable diligence to keep common areas safe, citing Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v. American Dist. Tel Co., 18 N.Y.2d 57, 63. The court stated the landlord should exercise reasonable care to make certain that the steps are safe from known dangers or those which could be anticipated, and certainly not to create a situation likely to result in injury to a tenant, citing Restatement, 2d, Torts, § 361 and Nevoso v. Putter-Fine Bldg. Corp., 18 A.D.2d 317, 320.