Weissman v. Aramark Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | 09-CV-1221 (DLI) (VVP) |
| Parties | ROBIN WEISSMAN, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK CORPORATION, Defendant. ARAMARK HEALTHCARE SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC i/s/h/a ARAMARK CORPORATION, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL, Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The defendants in the above-captioned cases have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and Judge Irizarry has referred the motions to me for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The cases arise out of personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff Robin Weissman ("plaintiff'' or "Ms. Weissman") at St. John's Episcopal Hospital ("St. John's" or "Hospital") and a contract for services and indemnification between St. John's and Aramark Corporation ("Aramark"). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned finds that no genuine issue of material fact remains as to the plaintiff's negligence claim and recommends that the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The court also concludes, however, that issues of fact preclude summary judgment as to Aramark's and St. John's cross-claims against each other for indemnification for the costs they have incurred in defending this action.
The plaintiff commenced this action in February 2009 by the filing of a Summons and Complaint against Aramark in New York State Court. The plaintiff's complaint contains a single cause of action for negligence for injuries she suffered in a trip and fall accident that occurred at St. John's Hospital in Far Rockaway, New York in February 2008. St. John's, who is the plaintiff's employer and owner of the premises, had contracted with Aramark for the provision of managerial services at the hospital facilities. Aramark removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity, and in February 2009, Aramark commenced a third-party action against St. John's for indemnification for defense costs and any potential recovery by the plaintiff. In its Answer, St. John's made a cross-claim against Aramark for indemnification for defense costs in this action. The parties have engaged in discovery related to the issues raised by the summary judgment motions before the court and rely on the information gleaned therein in their arguments.
The facts that form the basis for these two actions are further elaborated below. The court relies on the Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statements of Fact filed by the parties, as well as the exhibits attached to the parties' moving papers, and the pleadings, admissions, and prior discovery rulings that have occurred. The facts described below are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
On February 13, 2008, at approximately 12:00 p.m., the plaintiff and some of her coworkers decided to have lunch at the hospital cafeteria located in the basement of St. John's Hospital. Aramark Rule 56.1 Statement, at ¶¶ 1, 7-8 (Dkt No. 35). The plaintiff was walking to lunch with Nurse Noelle Anderson, Nurse Kathy Hanna, and Dr. Daniel Beer. Id. ¶ 8. While they were walking from the stairwell down the basement corridor to the hospital cafeteria, the plaintiff tripped and fell on a raised portion of the tile floor in the corridor. Id. ¶¶ 1, 8-9. As a result, the plaintiff suffered injuries to her knee and spine. Id. ¶ 2. After the plaintiff fell, she and her co-workers noticed a defect in the tile floor on which the plaintiff had tripped. Theseindividuals describe the defect in various ways, as a "lump" of concrete "embedded in the tile," "a bump in the floor," and "a bump in the middle of the tile." Id. ¶¶ 11, 26, 44. Neither the plaintiff nor her co-workers saw the defect on the floor before she fell. Id. ¶¶ 10, 26, 31, 44.
The plaintiff testified that sometime after she was injured, she contacted Michael Kaleda, an Aramark employee, to advise him about the tile and where it was located. Id. ¶ 14. At that time, Mr. Kaleda was Aramark's Assistant Director of Plant Operations and Maintenance (the Engineering Department) and one of two Aramark employees who worked in the Engineering Department. His job involved managing St. John's union maintenance employees. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. The plaintiff testified that when she called Mr. Kaleda he told her, "I know that tile." Id. ¶ 14. Mr. Kaleda testified, however, that he did not recall how he learned of the plaintiff's accident and had not received any complaints about the tile before that accident. Id. ¶ 18. He testified that when he first learned about the accident, he went to inspect the floor where it happened, identified it as a tripping hazard, and dispatched a St. John's painter to fix it. Id. ¶¶18-20. He did not recall stating to anyone that he had been aware of the defective tile before the plaintiff's accident. See Kaleda Deposition, attached to Thompson Decl. as Ex. H, at 67:18-68:20. Mr. Kaleda also testified that the St. John's employee that performed the repair told him that because of the proximity of the hospital to the beach, the bump in the floor was most likely caused by moisture and calcium deposits that had built up underneath. Id. at 26:17-25.
Another Aramark employee, James Jackson, testified that as Aramark's Director of Environmental Services during this time period he oversaw three Aramark supervisors and fifty-six St. John's service employees. Aramark Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶ 34; but see St. John's Counter Rule 56.1 Statement, at ¶ 34 (Dkt No. 41) (disputing that fifty-six staff members were St. John's employees). Part of Mr. Jackson's duties were to inspect the hospital to ensure that it was cleaned appropriately by the cleaning staff and for the purpose of assigning work to his managerial staff. Aramark Rule 56.1 Statement, at ¶ 35. Mr. Jackson testified that he would inspect the hospital facility three times a day in different areas to ensure it was clean and that the three Aramark supervisors also conducted inspections. St. John's Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶ 1 (DktNo. 47). Mr. Jackson testified that he never observed any defect in the floor during his inspections and that he had never received any reports of unevenness in the floor. Aramark Rule 56.1 Statement, at ¶¶ 36-38.
The contractual relationship between Aramark and St. John's is set out in a Managed Services Agreement dated January 8, 2003 that was in effect at the time of the plaintiff's accident. Aramark Rule 56.1 Statement, at ¶ 47 () (hereafter "Managed Services Agreement" or "contract"). The contract authorizes Aramark to perform, on the hospital's behalf, certain "Managed Services" on the hospital's premises, which consist of the "management, supervision and operation by ARAMARK of Food Services, Housekeeping Services, and Plant Operations and Maintenance ["POM" or Engineering] Services." Managed Services Agreement at ¶¶ 1, 2(E).
In addition to specifying Aramark's duties under the contract, the agreement also defines situations in which Aramark and St. John's agree to indemnify one another against losses arising out of the performance of the contract. At issue in these summary judgment motions is which indemnification provisions in the contract apply to the plaintiff's claim as well as the proper interpretation of those provisions.
In a general indemnification provision, St. John's agrees to indemnify Aramark for losses that arise out of the performance of its obligations, unless Aramark's negligence caused the loss. Under that provision, St. John's agrees to indemnify Aramark:
from and against all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, investigations, demands, fines, liabilities, judgments, settlements, damages, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal fees) (collectively, "Damages") which may be asserted against ARAMARK, which result from, relate to, arise out of, or are a direct result of the performance of the Managed Services by ARAMARK, provided, however, that Hospital shall not protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless ARAMARK from any claims for Damages arising in any way out of the sole negligence of ARAMARK.
Managed Services Agreement ¶ 4(C)(1). Aramark in turn promises to similarly indemnify St. John's against claims which arise from "the negligent performance of the Managed Services by ARAMARK." Id. ¶ 4(C)(2).
The other indemnification provisions at issue in this lawsuit are found in Exhibit C to the Managed Services Agreement, which more specifically defines Aramark's responsibilities for "Plant Operations and Maintenance." Like the general indemnification provisions, Exhibit C includes mutual indemnification provisions that provide for St. John's to indemnify Aramark except where Aramark is negligent and vice versa. Managed Services Agreement, Ex. C, at ¶¶ F, G. Exhibit C also specifically defines Aramark's responsibilities concerning "unsafe conditions" and addresses such conditions.
ARAMARK does not hold itself out as a qualified environmental or safety consultant or contractor, and shall not be responsible for detecting any Hazardous Materials or Unsafe Conditions that may be present at or in the Facilities, for determining how to deal with them, or for removing them or otherwise remediating them.
Managed Services Agreement, Ex. C, at ¶ C.1 "Unsafe Conditions" are defined as "conditions at or in Hospital or Nursing Home that are unsafe and may result in injury to persons, including, without limitation, structural deficiencies, dangerously defective equipment and the like." See id. at ¶ C. While Aramark is not responsible for detecting unsafe conditions, both parties are responsible for taking action once they become aware of unsafe conditions at the premises. Aramark has a duty to notify St. John's and clear the area, and St. John's has a duty to notify Aramark and remedy the condition. Id. at ¶ C.2 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial