Cohen v. State, 71 N.Y.2d 935 (1988)

The State, as a landowner, owes a duty of care to maintain its property, held open to the public, in a reasonably safe condition, particularly when it knowingly permits a dangerous activity that creates a foreseeable risk to pedestrians.

Summary

This case concerns the State’s liability for a pedestrian’s death on state-owned property. The decedent was struck and killed by a bicyclist during a time trial regularly held on the State Office Building Campus. The claimant initially sued the cyclist in Supreme Court, then sued the State in the Court of Claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the State breached its duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition by failing to protect pedestrians from the foreseeable dangers of the bicycle time trials. The Court also rejected the State’s collateral estoppel argument regarding the decedent’s comparative negligence.

Facts

The decedent was crossing a street in a marked crosswalk on the State Office Building Campus in Albany. A bicyclist participating in a time trial struck and killed him. The State knowingly permitted these time trials to occur several times a week on roadways within the office complex. The State took no measures to protect pedestrians despite the foreseeable dangers posed by the bicycle races.

Procedural History

The claimant sued the cyclist and others in Supreme Court, where damages were assessed at $980,000, and the decedent was found 60% comparatively negligent. The claimant then commenced an action against the State in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims found the decedent and the State each 50% at fault and assessed damages at $680,870. The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims order. The State appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the State owed a duty of care to the decedent to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition.
2. Whether the State breached its duty of care to the decedent.
3. Whether collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the issue of the decedent’s comparative negligence in the Court of Claims.

Holding

1. Yes, because the State, like other landowners, owes a duty of care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition when it is held open to the public.
2. Yes, because the State knowingly permitted dangerous bicycle time trials without taking measures to protect pedestrians.
3. No, because the issue of decedent’s comparative negligence with respect to the State was not addressed in the Supreme Court action, and the State could not have been a party to that action.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the State, as a landowner, had a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for those it holds open to the public. The Court applied the existing rule that landowners must exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injuries. The Court found that the bicycle time trials, knowingly permitted by the State, constituted an unusual hazard or dangerous activity. The State breached its duty by failing to take any protective measures for pedestrians, even though the dangers were foreseeable. Citing Cohen v. City of New York, the court emphasized the State’s responsibility to protect against foreseeable dangers. As stated in the opinion, “Yet the State took no measures to protect pedestrians, even though the potential dangers were foreseeable.”

Regarding collateral estoppel, the Court found that the issue of the decedent’s comparative negligence in relation to the State was not litigated in the Supreme Court action. The State was not, and could not have been, a party to the Supreme Court action. The Court noted that the issue of relative culpability between the decedent and the cyclist in the Supreme Court action was distinct from the issue of culpability between the decedent and the State in the Court of Claims. The Court of Appeals stated, “[T]here has been no showing by the State that the Supreme Court addressed relative culpability as between the decedent and the State, which was an issue squarely before the Court of Claims.”

The Court also found that the claimant never had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the decedent’s comparative negligence in relation to the State in the prior action.