Kerins v. Vassar College, 77 N.Y.2d 896 (1991)

A landlord generally owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff from a tenant’s activities unless the landlord has a statutory or contractual obligation to maintain the premises, or actual knowledge of the hazardous condition.

Summary

This case concerns a plaintiff’s claim that her decedent’s disease was caused by radiation seeping from an X-ray machine in a neighboring office. The New York Court of Appeals addressed the duty of care owed by the landlord (Vassar College) and the installer of the lead shield (Berridge). The Court held that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether Berridge properly installed the lead shield, precluding summary judgment for Berridge. However, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the remaining defendants (the landlords), finding they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff because they lacked a statutory or contractual obligation to maintain the premises or actual knowledge of the hazard.

Facts

The plaintiff claimed her decedent’s disease was caused by radiation exposure from an X-ray machine in an adjacent office leased to defendant Berridge by Vassar College and other defendants. Berridge was ordered by the New York State Department of Health to install a lead shield. The plaintiff sued, alleging negligence. The plaintiff’s medical expert stated that the decedent’s disease was caused by radiation seeping through Berridge’s office.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division granted summary judgment to all defendants. The plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order by denying summary judgment for Berridge, but affirmed summary judgment for the remaining defendants.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a triable issue of fact existed regarding Berridge’s installation of the lead shield.

2. Whether the landlords (Vassar College and other defendants) owed a duty of care to the plaintiff or her decedent.

Holding

1. Yes, because the plaintiff presented an expert affidavit stating that the decedent’s disease was caused by radiation seeping through Berridge’s office, creating a triable issue of fact as to whether Berridge properly installed the lead shield.

2. No, because the landlords were under neither a statutory nor a contractual obligation to maintain the premises leased to Berridge, nor did they have actual knowledge of the hazard from X-ray exposure to persons in adjoining offices.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that a triable issue of fact existed regarding Berridge’s installation of the lead shield based on the conflicting expert affidavits. As for the landlords, the Court emphasized that Public Health Law § 3500 imposes a duty of care on operators of X-ray equipment and licensed practitioners, not landlords. The Court cited precedent that the retention of a right to reenter the premises does not, by itself, impose an obligation on the landlord to maintain the premises. The Court stated, “Given that defendants were under no statutory or contractual obligation to protect plaintiff’s decedent from the risk of X-ray radiation and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning defendants’ actual knowledge of hazard from X-ray exposure to persons in adjoining offices, defendants were under no duty to plaintiff or her decedent.” The absence of a statutory duty, a contractual obligation, or actual knowledge of the hazard was fatal to the plaintiff’s claim against the landlords. The Court distinguished the case from situations where a landlord has actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, emphasizing that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate such knowledge on the part of the landlords.