From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hass v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 28, 1991
170 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 28, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.).


Plaintiff commenced this action setting forth causes of action, in a representative capacity, for personal injury to and the wrongful death of her daughter, the decedent, and individually, for personal injury allegedly sustained when she watched her daughter mangled under the wheels of defendants' bus. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's individual cause of action only, which was denied.

To recover for personal injuries resulting from the observation of serious physical injury to a relative, the plaintiff must herself have been at the time of the relative's injury, within the zone of danger. (Bovsun v Sanperi, 61 N.Y.2d 219.) As plaintiff has established that material questions of fact exist as to whether her efforts to help her daughter exposed her to a risk of physical injury, which thereby placed her within the zone of danger, we now affirm (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Hass v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 28, 1991
170 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Hass v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Case Details

Full title:LILLIAN HASS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of DIANE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 28, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 291

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Supermarkets General Corp.

As noted, in this instance no direct physical risk of injury is alleged on behalf of either the children or…

Malstrom v. Mackey

We cannot say as a matter of law that Mackey's conduct did not create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm by…