Roberts v. MacFarland Const. Companies
| Decision Date | 21 June 1984 |
| Citation | 102 A.D.2d 981,477 N.Y.S.2d 786 |
| Parties | Charles L. ROBERTS et al., Respondents, v. MacFARLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant; Ford Motor Company, Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carter, Conboy, Bardwell, Case & Blackmore, Albany (Fredericka Hummel, of counsel), for defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant.
E. Stewart Jones, Troy (Jeffrey K. Anderson, Troy, of counsel), for respondents.
Before KANE, J.P., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 2, 1983 in Albany County, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The issue presented in this case is whether, in a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall on water accumulated on a warehouse floor due to the alleged negligence of the builder, it is necessary to allege in the complaint and to prove the existence of a latent defect or concealed danger in order to hold the builder liable. We conclude, as did Special Term, that it is no longer necessary to do so. An affirmance is, therefore, required.
This action was commenced against defendant, the builder of the warehouse where plaintiff Charles L. Roberts (plaintiff) worked, for damages due to personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when he slipped and fell on the floor of the warehouse. In their complaint alleging two causes of action, plaintiff and his wife first charge that the fall was the result of an accumulation of water on the floor of the warehouse due to defendant's negligence in designing, constructing and repairing the warehouse. The second cause of action was a derivative action for losses sustained by plaintiff's wife. The derivative action was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff and his wife were not married at the time of the fall. A third-party action was brought by defendant against plaintiff's employer, Ford Motor Company.
After a bill of particulars was served and plaintiff testified at an examination before trial, defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the complaint failed to allege or to prove any latent defect or concealed danger. Special Term found it was unnecessary to do so and denied the motion. Defendant then took this appeal.
Defendant's contention that Inman v. Binghamton Housing Auth. 3 N.Y.2d 137, 164 N.Y.S.2d 699, 143 N.E.2d 895, requires that a plaintiff allege and prove the existence of a latent or concealed danger in order to hold a builder or designer liable is rejected. In the more recent case of Micallef v. Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter, 39 N.Y.2d 376, 384 N.Y.S.2d 115, 348 N.E.2d 571, the Court of Appeals held that it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Church v. Callanan Indus.
...v Executive I Assocs. (228 A.D.2d 859), Marrero v Marsico (218 A.D.2d 226), Sternbach v Cornell Univ. (162 A.D.2d 922), Roberts v MacFarland Constr. Cos. (102 A.D.2d 981) and Cubito v Kreisberg (69 A.D.2d 738, affd 51 N.Y.2d 900). Notably, the "modern rule" merely dictates that an owner's a......
-
Qi v. City of N.Y.
...as no latent defect was alleged. The requirement of a latent defect has since been abandoned. (Roberts v. MacFarland Constr. Cos., 102 A.D.2d 981, 477 N.Y.S.2d 786 [3d Dept. 1984] [failure to allege latent defect is no longer considered to be fatal and does not mandate dismissal of the comp......
-
Colonno v. Executive I Associates
...contractor (see, Inman v. Binghamton Housing Auth., supra, at 144-145, 164 N.Y.S.2d 699, 143 N.E.2d 895; Roberts v. MacFarland Constr. Cos., 102 A.D.2d 981, 477 N.Y.S.2d 786). We further find the jury's verdict of negligence to be supported by legally sufficient evidence. Noting that a verd......