Summary
finding the presence of nonticketed individuals in an airport baggage claim area carrying balloon strings in which plaintiff's crutches became entangled did not constitute a foreseeable danger
Summary of this case from Coulter v. Barbeque Integrated, Inc.Opinion
February 10, 1999
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Elliot, J. — Summary Judgment.)
Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Callahan, JJ.
Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motions granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendants contend that Supreme Court erred in denying those portions of their motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the negligence cause of action. We agree. The record establishes that plaintiff, who is disabled and walks with a crutch, arrived at the Syracuse Hancock International Airport on a flight from California. She proceeded to the baggage claim area of the airport, where she observed an individual holding a number of helium balloons with ribbon streamers. After plaintiff retrieved her bags, her crutch became entangled in the streamers of the balloons, which were no longer held by anyone but were free-floating, causing her to fall. Plaintiff commenced this action asserting causes of action for negligence and violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ([ADA] 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.). The court properly granted those portions of defendants' motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the ADA cause of action. The court, however, should have dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
We reject the contention of plaintiff that defendants were negligent in failing to assist her in deplaning and obtaining her baggage. Plaintiff never sought assistance from the personnel of either defendant. Plaintiff further contends that defendants may be liable because they permitted nonticketed individuals who were carrying balloons to enter the baggage claim area. In order to impose liability upon an owner or lessor of property, a plaintiff must establish that a hazardous condition existed and that the owner or lessor either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. The presence of nonticketed individuals carrying balloons in the baggage claim area did not constitute a hazardous condition presenting a foreseeable danger ( see, e.g., Pepic v. Joco Realty, 216 A.D.2d 95; Hessner v. Laporte, 171 A.D.2d 999; White v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 228 App. Div. 50, 52-54). At most, their presence furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence but was not a proximate cause of it ( see, Margolin v. Friedman, 43 N.Y.2d 982, 983; Sheehan v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 496, 503). Even assuming, arguendo, that the free-floating balloons constituted a hazardous condition, we conclude that defendants were entitled to summary judgment because they did not create the condition or have actual or constructive notice that the balloons were free-floating ( see generally, Lewis v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 A.D.2d 246, 248-251, aff'd for reasons stated 64 N.Y.2d 670; Eddy v. Tops Friendly Mkts., 91 A.D.2d 1203, aff'd 59 N.Y.2d 692; Browne v. Big V Supermarkets, 188 A.D.2d 798, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 708; Lowrey v. Cumberland Farms, 162 A.D.2d 777, 778).