Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 181 SSM 28,181 SSM 28 |
| Citation | 878 N.E.2d 1015,848 N.Y.S.2d 599,9 N.Y.3d 973 |
| Parties | Peter MILLER, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Defendant CSX was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact on the issue of whether CSX breached a duty of care it owed plaintiff as owner of the railroad yard where plaintiff was injured. Absent a hazardous condition or other circumstance giving rise to an obligation to provide exterior lighting for a particular area, landowners are generally not required "to illuminate their property during all hours of darkness" (Peralta v. Henriquez, 100 N.Y.2d 139, 145, 760 N.Y.S.2d 741, 790 N.E.2d 1170 [2003]). In this case, even assuming CSX had an obligation to light the railroad yard, it is undisputed that CSX provided lighting in the yard. The railroad yard was dark at the time of plaintiff's injury due to a power outage—a problem that CSX did not cause or control and that was known to plaintiff when he entered the property. Thus,
plaintiff has failed to come forward with any proof that his injury, caused when he tripped on the ramp of another truck, was attributable to negligence on the part of CSX.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rossal–Daub v. Walter
...564, 352 N.E.2d 868 [1976];Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 41 A.D.3d 948, 950, 837 N.Y.S.2d 783 [2007],affd.9 N.Y.3d 973, 848 N.Y.S.2d 599, 878 N.E.2d 1015 [2007] ). “The scope of such duty is determined in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the ......
-
Revesz v. Carey
...of any hazards posed by it ( see [86 A.D.3d 824] Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 41 A.D.3d 948, 950, 837 N.Y.S.2d 783 [2007], affd. 9 N.Y.3d 973, 848 N.Y.S.2d 599, 878 N.E.2d 1015 [2007]; England v. Vacri Constr. Corp., 24 A.D.3d 1122, 1124, 807 N.Y.S.2d 669 [2005]; Soich v. Farone, 307 ......
-
Conneally v. Diocese of Rockville Ctr.
...landowners are generally not required ‘to illuminate their property during all hours of darkness' ” ( Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 9 N.Y.3d 973, 974, 848 N.Y.S.2d 599, 878 N.E.2d 1015, quoting Peralta v. Henriquez, 100 N.Y.2d 139, 145, 760 N.Y.S.2d 741, 790 N.E.2d 1170;Taylor v. Lands......
-
Steed v. MVA Enters., LLC
...landowners are generally not required ‘to illuminate their property during all hours of darkness' " (Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 9 N.Y.3d 973, 974, 848 N.Y.S.2d 599, 878 N.E.2d 1015, quoting Peralta v. Henriquez, 100 N.Y.2d 139, 145, 760 N.Y.S.2d 741, 790 N.E.2d 1170 ). Contrary to t......