From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Knight v. Certified Oils, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 12, 1997
239 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 12, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

On January 18, 1991, the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a puddle of waste oil in the parking lot of the automobile dealership where she was employed. According to the plaintiff, the oil puddle was located near the access cap to an underground tank used to store waste oil. When the underground tank was full, the defendant was called to pump out the tank and remove the waste oil. Although it is undisputed that the defendant's last service call to the automobile dealership was made more than one month prior to the plaintiff's accident, she alleges that the defendant negligently created the oil spill while pumping waste oil out of the tank.

In order to establish liability in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant either created the dangerous condition complained of, or had actual or constructive notice of it (see, Mercer v. City of New York, 223 A.D.2d 688, affd 88 N.Y.2d 955; Nedd v. Associated Hosp. Servs., 236 A.D.2d 455). Here, while the plaintiff theorizes that the defendant negligently created a dangerous condition by spilling waste oil during its last service call prior to her accident, the record is devoid of any evidence that the defendant spilled oil on the ground during this service call, or on any previous occasion. Furthermore, the defendant's principal testified at his examination before trial that mechanics employed by the automobile dealership filled the storage tank by pouring waste oil into a pipe underneath the access cap, and the plaintiff noted at her deposition that oil "bubbled up" to the ground when the tank was full. Under these circumstances, a jury could not rationally infer that the defendant created the dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff's accident (see, Mercer v. City of New York, supra; see also, Goldberg v. Hoffenberg, 226 A.D.2d 424).

O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Knight v. Certified Oils, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 12, 1997
239 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Knight v. Certified Oils, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LOUISE KNIGHT, Respondent, v. CERTIFIED OILS, INC., Also Known as…

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

Date published: May 12, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 337

Citing Cases

Starling v. Suffolk County Water Authority

It is well settled that in order for a plaintiff in a trip and fall case to establish a prima facie case of…

Segretti v. Shorenstein Company

Defendants have met their burden of demonstrating the absence of notice as a matter of law. As the Appellate…