New York Law Review

Tag: Kush v. City of Buffalo

  • Kush v. City of Buffalo, 59 N.Y.2d 619 (1983): Superseding Negligence and Unforeseeable Actions

    Kush v. City of Buffalo, 59 N.Y.2d 619 (1983)

    An intervening act, particularly one involving reckless conduct by the plaintiff, may constitute a superseding cause that absolves the defendant of liability, even if the defendant’s negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.

    Summary

    The case concerns a plaintiff who sustained injuries after diving headfirst into a shallow swimming pool owned by the City of Buffalo. The plaintiff sued the city, alleging negligence in allowing trespassers into the pool area, maintaining the pool at a dangerously low water level, and placing a lifeguard chair near the shallow end. The New York Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s reckless act of diving headfirst into shallow water, despite being an experienced swimmer familiar with the pool’s water levels, was an unforeseeable, superseding cause that relieved the city of liability. The court emphasized that legal cause can be decided as a matter of law when only one conclusion can be drawn from the established facts.

    Facts

    The City of Buffalo owned and operated a swimming pool.

    The pool was allegedly negligently maintained: trespassers gained entry, the water level was dangerously low, and a lifeguard chair was placed near the shallow end.

    The plaintiff, an adult experienced in swimming, was aware of the general dangers of diving and familiar with the various water levels throughout the pool.

    The plaintiff chose to dive headfirst from the lifeguard chair into the shallow end of the pool and sustained injuries.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiff sued the City of Buffalo, alleging negligence.

    The defendant moved for summary judgment.

    The lower court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding the plaintiff’s actions to be a superseding cause.

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the plaintiff’s reckless conduct of diving headfirst into a shallow pool, despite his awareness of the dangers and water levels, constitutes an unforeseeable superseding event that absolves the defendant of liability for negligence.

    Holding

    Yes, because the plaintiff’s reckless conduct, as an adult experienced in swimming and aware of the water levels, was an unforeseeable superseding event that broke the chain of causation between the defendant’s alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that to establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial cause of the injury. The court cited Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., stating that when an intervening act contributes to the injury, liability depends on whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence.

    Even assuming the City’s negligence contributed to the injury, the court found that the plaintiff’s reckless dive was an unforeseeable superseding event. The court emphasized the plaintiff’s experience as a swimmer and his knowledge of the pool’s varying water levels. The court quoted Basso v. Miller, stating that “foreseeability shall be a measure of (a landowner’s) liability”.

    The court adopted the Restatement’s view on superseding cause, noting that an intervening act can break the chain of causation if it is extraordinary under the circumstances. The court concluded that only one conclusion could be drawn from the established facts; therefore, the question of legal cause could be decided as a matter of law. The court reasoned that a reasonable person would not expect an experienced swimmer, aware of the dangers and water levels, to dive headfirst into the shallow end of a pool.

    The court held that the plaintiff’s own reckless conduct absolved the defendants of liability, as it was an unforeseeable and superseding cause of his injuries. As the court noted, “[W]here only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts * * * the question of legal cause may be decided as a matter of law”.

  • документоборот Kush v. City of Buffalo, 59 N.Y.2d 26 (1983): Municipality’s Duty of Care on City-Owned Vacant Lots

    Kush v. City of Buffalo, 59 N.Y.2d 26 (1983)

    A municipality has a duty to exercise reasonable care against foreseeable dangers on its property, including vacant lots used as playgrounds, but the scope of that duty depends on the city’s knowledge of the use and the nature of the risks involved.

    Summary

    Plaintiffs, children injured by an explosion on a City-owned vacant lot used as a playground, sued the City of Buffalo, alleging negligence in failing to prevent dangerous rubbish fires. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the jury verdict for the plaintiffs, holding that the occasional rubbish fires were not an ultrahazardous condition requiring the City to provide supervision or fencing. The dissent argued that the City’s knowledge of children playing on the lot and the frequent occurrence of fires created a duty to exercise reasonable care, which the jury could have found was breached.

    Facts

    Several children, including the plaintiffs, were playing softball on a vacant lot owned by the City of Buffalo. One of the children obtained lacquer, poured it into a metal pipe, and started a fire. When the plaintiffs gathered to watch, the lacquer exploded, causing serious burns to the plaintiffs. There was evidence suggesting the lot was used as a playground. Witnesses testified that rubbish fires occurred frequently on the lot and were sometimes extinguished by City firefighters. A sign indicated a future park for children. Garbage was removed by the Sanitation Department upon request.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiffs sued the City of Buffalo. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, dismissing the complaint, finding no duty of care or proximate cause. The New York Court of Appeals granted review.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the City of Buffalo had a duty to prevent injury to children playing on a vacant lot it owned, given the history of rubbish fires on the property.

    Holding

    No, because occasional rubbish fires on a vacant lot, readily observable, are not of such a nature as to require the City to provide supervision or construct a locked fence.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court stated that a municipality’s duty to maintain its parks in reasonably safe condition includes preventing ultrahazardous and criminal activity of which it has knowledge. However, the court refused to extend this duty to the present facts. Even if the vacant lot were likened to a park, the court found the occasional rubbish fires were not an ultrahazardous condition requiring the City to take preventative measures. The court distinguished this case from situations involving ultrahazardous, illegal activity, such as the discharge of fireworks. The court emphasized the open and obvious nature of the fires. The dissenting judge argued that the City’s knowledge of the children’s use of the lot and the recurring fires was enough for a jury to find that the city had breached its duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition. The dissent noted that the duty extended to all foreseeable dangers, not just ultrahazardous activities, and that a jury could reasonably conclude the City should have taken steps to protect children from the fires. The dissent also suggested that the dangerous nature of open, uncontrolled garbage fires in a children’s play area seems obvious, or certainly, it would not be utterly irrational for a juror to consider such a condition dangerous.