Preston v. State
| Decision Date | 07 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 61910,61910 |
| Citation | 59 N.Y.2d 997,466 N.Y.S.2d 952 |
| Parties | , 453 N.E.2d 1241 Andrew C. PRESTON, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. (Claim) |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 92 A.D.2d 1027, 461 N.Y.S.2d 437, should be reversed, without costs, and the interlocutory judgment of the Court of Claims reinstated.
Having waived its sovereign immunity, the State is subject to the same rules of liability as apply to private citizens (Court of Claims Act, § 8). As a landowner, the State " 'must act as a reasonable man in maintaining his 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' " (Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868, quoting Smith v. Arbaugh's Rest., D.C.Cir., 469 F.2d 97, 100).
Claimant was injured when he tripped and cut his leg while wading in a small lagoon adjacent to an island owned by the State. The State had specifically reserved this area for swimming only. On the beach, it had provided picnic tables and benches, brick barbecue pits, trash cans, and outhouses. Claimant's accident was caused by a rusty, jagged pipe imbedded in concrete and rising to within two inches of the water's surface. Evidence at trial established that the pipe had been in place in the same condition for at least four years.
Under the circumstances, the State had a duty either to inspect and remove hazards from the water or to give warnings that the waters were used at the swimmer's risk. This does not require the State to scrutinize every square foot of riverbed and lakebottom that it owns. Mere ownership does not give rise to the duty, but inviting the public to swim there does. Obviously, an individual who bathes in a State lake in a primitive area of the Adirondacks cannot expect the State to have "sanitized" the area for safe public use. Also, in areas where the public has been invited to swim, this does not make the State an insurer, liable for every injury no matter the nature of the hazard or how long it has been in place. There must be some proof that the potential danger reasonably could have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abrams v. Berelson
...discovered by the [landowner]’ ” ( Abrams v. Berelson, 283 A.D.2d at 598, 725 N.Y.S.2d 81, quoting Preston v. State of New York, 59 N.Y.2d 997, 999, 466 N.Y.S.2d 952, 453 N.E.2d 1241). Again, Torres stated in his affidavit that the defendant had informed the injured plaintiff that she had “......
-
McEnaney v. State
...of a special duty (Miller v. State of New York, supra, at 511, 478 N.Y.S.2d 829, 467 N.E.2d 493; see, Preston v. State of New York, 59 N.Y.2d 997, 466 N.Y.S.2d 952, 453 N.E.2d 1241; see also, Court of Claims Act § 8; Bonner v. City of New York, supra, at 934, 539 N.Y.S.2d 728, 536 N.E.2d 11......
-
Carter v. State
...Defendant has the same duty and is subject to the same rules of liability as other landowners ( see Preston v. State of New York, 59 N.Y.2d 997, 998, 466 N.Y.S.2d 952, 453 N.E.2d 1241 [1983];Covington v. State of New York, 54 A.D.3d 1137, 1137–1138, 863 N.Y.S.2d 852 [2008] ). As such, “[t]o......
-
Nieswand v. Cornell University
...entity is acting in a proprietary capacity. Miller, 62 N.Y.2d at 511, 478 N.Y.S.2d at 832, 467 N.E.2d at 496; see also Preston v. New York, 59 N.Y.2d 997, 998, 466 N.Y. S.2d 952, 952-53, 453 N.E.2d 1241, 1241-42 (1983). Plaintiffs' assertion of liability against Cornell is not based upon it......