Baker v. Eastman Kodak Co.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1970 |
| Parties | Lillian R. BAKER, Respondent v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Wm. H. Morris, Rochester, for appellant.
Frank & Garrity, John R. Garrity, Rochester, for respondent.
Before GOLDMAN, P.J., and MARSH, MOULE and BASTOW, JJ.
Defendant provides a roller skating rink for its employees and plaintiff had been a guest at the rink on three or four prior occasions. Plaintiff testified that on the night of the accident she was skating in a counter-clockwise direction when an unidentified skater passed her. She said that after he was eight to ten feet in front of her 'all of a sudded he turned abruptly and come back abruptly opposite the flow and I put my hand out to stop him, but between the speed and abruptness on both sides, he caught my skate and I just went down'. The attendant-supervisor who had been present most of the evening was out of the room when the accident occurred. The principal claim of negligence, plaintiff urges, is the failure of supervision by reason of the abgence, of the attendant. The vital question is whether the absence of the attendant, and, therefore, lack of supervision, is causally connected with the accident. The element of risk assumed by plaintiff did not relieve defendant from the obligation of using reasonable care to guard against a risk which might reasonably be anticipated. The sudden and abrupt action of the unknown skater, which happened in a matter of seconds, could not have been anticipated or avoided by the most intensive supervision. The situation is completely similar to the facts in Diaz v. City of New York, 25 A.D.2d 430, 266 N.Y.S.2d 532, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 748, 296 N.Y.S.2d 796, 244 N.E.2d 267, where the court said, 25 A.D.2d at pages 430--431, 266 N.Y.S.2d at page 533, . The fact situation at bar is analogous to our recent decision in Brady v. City of Buffalo, New York, 34 A.D.2d 878, 312 N.Y.S.2d 446, May 14, 1970 and the same principles of law apply. (See, also Maurer v. Board of Education, etc., 294 N.Y. 672, 60 N.E.2d 759.) Defendant's motion at the close of all the proof to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. (Blum v. Fresh Grown...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zambrana v. City of New York
...prevented, even with the most intensive supervision (Winter v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 827, 617 N.Y.S.2d 833; Baker v. Eastman Kodak Co., 34 A.D.2d 886, 312 N.Y.S.2d 449, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 636, 320 N.Y.S.2d 247, 269 N.E.2d What looms unduly large in the dissent's narrative of the facts i......
-
Castillo v. City of N.Y.
...defendants is warranted."]; Convey v. City of Rye School Dist., 271 A.D.2d 154, 160 [2d Dept 2000] [same]; Baker v. Eastman Kodak Co., 34 A.D.2d 886, 886 [4th Dept 1970] ["The sudden and abrupt action of the unknown skater, which happened in a matter of seconds, could not have been anticipa......
-
Shorten v. City of White Plains
...N.E.2d 541) and where the injury could not have been prevented by even the most intensive supervision (see, e.g., Baker v. Eastman Kodak Co., 34 A.D.2d 886, 312 N.Y.S.2d 449, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 636, 320 N.Y.S.2d 247, 269 N.E.2d 36; Winter v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 827, 617 N.Y.S.2d 833).......
-
Kleiner v. Commack Roller Rink
...of injury resulting therefrom (see, Taynor v. Skate Grove at Lake Grove, Inc., 150 A.D.2d 362, 540 N.Y.S.2d 883; Baker v. Eastman Kodak Co., 34 A.D.2d 886, 312 N.Y.S.2d 449, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 636, 320 N.Y.S.2d 247, 269 N.E.2d 36). Moreover, in opposing the defendant's motion, the plaintiffs f......