Summary
This Appellate Division, Fourth Department opinion reverses a trial court's grant of summary judgment in a personal injury action involving a vehicle seat used as lawn furniture. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the seat's instability was an open and obvious danger, thereby presenting triable issues of fact. The court also noted that the defendant's moving papers did not adequately address all claims asserted in the complaint.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant owed a duty to warn the plaintiff of the open and obvious danger presented by the seat
- Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the plaintiff's duty‑to‑warn and inherent‑danger claims
Holdings
- The appellate division held that the trial court erred in concluding the danger was open and obvious; there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant had a duty to warn.
Key quotations
“[t]o grant summary judgment, it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented” (441)
“facts must be viewed 'in the light most favorable to the non‑moving party'” (503)
“it is not the function of a court deciding a summary judgment motion to make . . . findings of fact” (505)
Factual background
Plaintiff, a guest at defendant's home, was injured when a seat that defendant had removed from a vehicle and placed on the grass fell backward as defendant stood up. Plaintiff alleged the seat was inherently dangerous as lawn furniture, that defendant failed to warn of its instability, and that defendant was negligent in rising abruptly.
Procedural history
The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the duty‑to‑warn and inherent‑danger claims. The appellant appealed. The Appellate Division reversed the summary‑judgment order and reinstated the complaint.