Back to Basics: Constructive Notice Looked at From Both Sides
"It is not enough for a defendant merely to point to its general cleaning or inspection practices," write Robert S. Kelner, Gail S. Kelner and Joshua D. Kelner.
September 23, 2024 at 12:00 PM
13 minute read
Among the most common personal injury actions are those which occur as the result of unrepaired defective conditions, such as by slips, trips, or falls. In order to establish a prima facie case of liability arising out of such a defective condition, a plaintiff must show that the defendant either caused and created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it.
Actual notice is self-explanatory. Defendant saw the condition ,was told about the condition or knew someone had been previously injured as a result of the condition but failed to remedy it. Prior written notice is perhaps the best known example of actual notice.
Where there is no evidence that defendant caused or created the condition or had actual notice, it is necessary to explore whether defendant can be held liable under principles of constructive notice. To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible, apparent, and exist for a sufficient length of time to permit defendant or its employees to discover and remedy the condition. Constructive notice may be established where there are witnesses who can demonstrate that the defect existed for a sufficient time to allow defendant to discover it. For example, acceptable proof could be testimony by someone who saw the defect a sufficient period of time before the accident, so that a timely inspection by defendant would have allowed the defective condition to be corrected in time to prevent the accident. Constructive notice may also be shown where the defect itself exhibited proof of its long-standing existence, such as visible rust, vegetation growing out of the crack at issue or other proof of an aging defect.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
New York Top Court Says Clickwrap Assent Binds Plaintiff's Personal-Injury Claim to Arbitration in Uber Case
Judge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Amid 'Existential War for Talent', Paul Weiss Promotes Both Equity and Non-Equity Partners
- 2After Regime Change, Syria Remains Liable in US Federal Courts for Alleged Assad-era Terrorism Support
- 3Prosecutors Want Tom Girardi to Serve 14 Years In Prison. His Lawyers Don't Want Him Behind Bars.
- 4Atkins Likely to Bring Pro-Business, Light Regulatory Touch to SEC, Say Agency Observers
- 5The Boom Continues: These Firms All Opened New Florida Offices in 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250