Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836 (1986)

To demonstrate constructive notice of a dangerous condition, a plaintiff must show that the defect was visible and apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it.

Summary

Plaintiff Gordon sued the American Museum of Natural History for injuries sustained when she fell on a broken step. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the museum had constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court emphasized the importance of the defect’s appearance and duration in establishing constructive notice, noting the jury could infer, based on photographs and testimony, that the condition existed long enough for the museum to have discovered and remedied it through reasonable care. The court also addressed objections to the trial court’s jury instructions, finding no reversible error.

Facts

Plaintiff Gordon fell on a stairway within the American Museum of Natural History. She claimed the fall was caused by a broken or defective step. She introduced photographic evidence purporting to depict the condition of the step at the time of the accident. Plaintiff and her daughter provided testimony regarding the step’s condition. The defense argued lack of notice of the defect and challenged the accuracy and timing of the photographs.

Procedural History

The plaintiff won a jury verdict at trial. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the defendant had constructive notice of the defective condition on the stairway.
2. Whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding notice and foreseeability.

Holding

1. Yes, because the jury could infer from the photographs and testimony regarding the irregularity, width, depth, and appearance of the defect that the condition existed for a sufficient length of time that the defendant should have acquired knowledge of it in the exercise of reasonable care.
2. No, because the court’s charge essentially paralleled the proffered instruction regarding notice, and the charge adequately incorporated the substance of the request regarding the absence of prior accidents.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals focused on whether the record supported the jury’s verdict regarding constructive notice. It emphasized that the jury was entitled to consider the photographs and testimony presented by the plaintiff to determine if a negligent condition existed and if it proximately caused the plaintiff’s fall. The court stated, “Specifically, the jury could have inferred from the irregularity, width, depth and appearance of the defect apparent from the concrete surface exhibited in the photographs, that the condition had to have come into being over such a length of time that knowledge thereof should have been acquired by the defendant in the exercise of reasonable care.” The court cited prior cases, including Blake v City of Albany and Batton v Elghanayan, to support this principle.

Regarding the defendant’s objections to the jury instructions, the court found that the trial court’s charge essentially paralleled the defendant’s requested instruction regarding the specific step where the defect was located. Furthermore, the court noted that no objection to the charge as given was lodged by defendant’s counsel as required by CPLR 4110-b. As for the absence of prior accidents, the court held that the charge, taken as a whole, adequately incorporated the substance of this request. The court referenced Spinelli v Licorich and Gross v City of New York to support its conclusion that the charge was adequate.