From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hatch v. Rog Glo, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 15, 1997
239 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 15, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.).


While shopping at defendant's market, plaintiff fell when she took paper towels from a high shelf and caught her left foot in the open end of a milk crate that had been left on the floor by a stocking clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for the injuries she allegedly sustained. Supreme Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff now appeals. We affirm.

The duty imposed on defendant to warn customers of dangerous or potentially dangerous conditions does not extend to conditions that are readily observable (see, Gransbury v. K Mart Corp., 229 A.D.2d 891; Thornhill v. Toys "R" Us NYTEX, 183 A.D.2d 1071, 1072-1073). As the evidence indicates that the milk crate was readily apparent to anyone traversing the aisle, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint.

Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Hatch v. Rog Glo, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 15, 1997
239 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Hatch v. Rog Glo, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:JUNE HATCH, Appellant, v. ROG GLO, LTD., Doing Business as DE RUYTER BIG M…

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

Date published: May 15, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 818

Citing Cases

Ellis v. City of New York

The Second Department found that the rack was not an inherently dangerous condition. Moreover, since the rack…

De Conno v. Golub Corporation

She also indicated that she failed to see the cone before her fall, that she was unable to indicate just how…