SCOPE OF DUTY

Landowners

Basso v Miller 40 N.Y.2d 233 (1976)

https://www.leagle.com/decision/197627340ny2d2331251 (February 24, 2019)

In this landmark case, the Court held that a defendant has a duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Court stated further that a landowner must act as a reasonable person in maintaining his or her property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk .

“While we have demonstrated our inclination to correlate the duty of care owed plaintiff with the risk of harm reasonably to be perceived, regardless of status, and concurrently consider the question of foreseeability (Martinez v Kaufman-Kane Realty Co., 34 N.Y.2d 819), we have not, until today,^* abandoned the classifications entirely and announced our adherence to the single standard of reasonable care under the circumstances whereby foreseeability shall be a measure of liability. To be sure, this standard of reasonable care should be no different than that applied in the usual negligence action. Contributory and, now, comparative negligence, as well as assumption of the risk, all fit into their respective places, to be invoked when appropriate.”

Tagle v. Jakob 97 N.Y.2d 165 (2001)

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2001/97-n-y-2d-165-0.html

“Plaintiff was injured when he climbed a tree on defendant’s property and touched an electric transmission wire suspended through the tree. For reasons that follow, we conclude that his action against defendant must fail.”

“Defendant Donna Jakob owned property with a one-family house in the Town of Reading, Schuyler County. The rear 10 feet of the backyard was subject to an easement that codefendant New York State Electric and Gas Co. (NYSEG) acquired in 1945. NYSEG maintains utility poles and uninsulated, overhead electric wires running approximately 25 feet above the ground. Two wires run through a single pine tree growing in defendant’s yard. The easement agreement authorized NYSEG to maintain the easement by trimming the tree. In 1996, Jakob leased the property to a tenant, but did not inform the tenant that electric wires passed through the tree. Shortly after taking possession of the property, the tenant invited plaintiff, then 16 years old, to a midday barbeque, during which plaintiff climbed the tree to a height above the wires. Plaintiff touched a wire and fell approximately 25 feet to the ground, suffering burns and other injuries, for which he sued Jakob and NYSEG. Jakob moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court denied Jakob’s motion, finding triable issues of fact. Jakob appealed.”