Open and Obvious Defense Clarified in a Case of Optical Confusion By SEO Admin on May 30, 2011

If I had a dollar for every time a defendant argued in a summary judgment motion that it was not negligent because the condition that caused my clients accident was open and obvious . With words that every defense counsel (and Judge) should never overlook, the Appellate Division, First Department opened a recent opinion with the sentence: In this personal injury action, we reiterate the well established principle that a finding of open and obvious as to a hazardous condition is never fatal to a plaintiffs negligence claim. It is relevant only to plaintiffs comparative fault. Saretsky v. 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., 2011 WL 1796367 (May 12, 2011). Even though this is not new law, you would be surprised how many times cases are dismissed solely because the condition is open and obvious. What is often overlooked is that although there is no duty to warn where a dangerous condition is open and obvious, the absence of the duty to warn does not vitiate the duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition. So while the defendant cannot be held liable for failing to warn of a condition that is open and obvious, a defendant can be held liable for breaching his duty to properly maintain his property. In Saretsky, the plaintiff was injured when she fell off a raised walkway situated onthe public sidewalkin front of the defendants building after exiting the codefendant store-owners shop. The plaintiff described the walkway as extending about 4 feet out from the face of the building and ending at a transition step approximately five inches high in the center of the sidewalk. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to make repairs to a hazardous condition, and in failing to provide any warning, visual cues, barriers, handrails or other devices. The defendants argued that the transition step from the walkway to the sidewalk is open and obvious and that plaintiffs inattention was the sole proximate cause of her fall. Significantly, the Saretsky decision noted that even visible hazards do not necessarily qualify as open and obvious because the nature or location of some hazards, while they are technically visible, make them likely to be overlooked. The plaintiff successfully persuaded the court to accept her theory of optical confusion. The affidavit of plaintiffs expert engineer stated that the concrete on the sidewalk and the walkway were similar shades of gray. He also noted that although the edge of the walkway was painted with a red line on the surface of the transition riser and upper horizontal edge, the paint in front of the defendants store was very worn. He opined that the failure to maintain the red stripe on the walkway was a predominant factor in the plaintiffs fall. It is further undisputed that there were no warning signs, handrails or barricades in the area indicating a change in elevation. Also significant in Saretsky is the manner in which the court explained that a plaintiffs testimony that she did not see the condition that caused her accident does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff was not paying attention or not looking. The appellate court was critical of the motion court for mischaracterizing the plaintiffs testimony. The motion court granted the defendants motions and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to rebut her sworn testimony that she fell because she wasnt looking. The motion court adhered to its prior decision when plaintiff moved to renew and reargue and offered, inter alia, the affidavit of her expert engineer. The appellate court reversed holding that not only did the motion court mischaracterize plaintiffs testimony, but its implicit conclusion, that had plaintiff been looking she would have seen the hazard and avoided injury, was premised on a finding that the transition step to the sidewalk was open and obvious. The lawyers at Levine & Slavit have decades of experience handling personal injury claims. For over 50 years spanning 3 generations, we have obtained results for satisfied clients. We have offices in Manhattan and Long Island, handling cases in New York City, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and surrounding areas. If you or someone close to you has been injured in a motor vehicle accident, contact the personal injury lawyers at Levine & Slavit for their help.

Related to This

Levine & Slavit, PLLC Logo

Levine & Slavit, PLLC

The law firm of Levine & Slavit, PLLC has served clients in Long Island and the Greater New York City-area since 1957. We are a team of personal injury and wrongful death lawyers who work tirelessly for victims' rights. Our team is licensed and affiliated with the:

  • New York State Bar Association
  • New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners
  • Florida Board of Bar Examiners
  • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York

Please contact our practice online for a free consultation or call (212) 687-2777 to speak to an attorney today. 

Contact Us Today

Rate, Review & Explore

Social Accounts Sprite
Google map image of our location in 60 E 42nd St Ste 2101 New York, NY

Manhattan Office

60 E 42nd St
Ste 2101
New York, NY 10165

Open Today 8:30am - 5:00pm

By Appointment Only

Google map image of our location in 350 Willis Ave Ste 100 Long Island, NY

Mineola Office

350 Willis Ave
Ste 100
Long Island, NY 11501

Open Today 9:00am - 5:00pm

By Appointment Only

(212) 687-2777 Send a message