My Photo

lawtechtalk


About This Blog

Sui Generis Partner

Other Sui Generis Sponsors





Search


  • Google
    Web Sui Generis


  • Legal Search Engine - Law.com Quest

Etc.





  • Save the Net

________________________

« Define That Term #199 | Main | The New York Minute »

March 29, 2007

A Little Prozac Goes A Long Way

In Oboler v City of New York 2007, NY Slip Op 02441, the New York Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether the plaintiffs had established an exception to the prior written notice law.  In Oboler, the injured plaintiff fell when he tripped over a "depressed manhole cover" and subsequently brought suit against the City of New York.

The Court noted that the City had no prior written notice of the alleged hazard as required by the City's administrative code, and thus the City could be held liable only if  one of the two well recognized exceptions to the prior written notice rule was established by the plaintiffs--that the City either created the defect in the manhole through an affirmative act of negligence that immediately resulted in the dangerous condition or that a "special use" conferred a special benefit upon the City.

The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving an exception to the "special use" doctrine:

Here, plaintiff presented no evidence of who last repaved this section of the roadway before the accident, when any such work may have been carried out, or the condition of the asphalt abutting the manhole cover immediately after any such resurfacing. Next, even assuming that the special use doctrine applies to a manhole situated in a City public street, plaintiffs presented no proof of any special benefit conferred on the City. Finally, we note that the expert's opinion was not inadmissible merely because nearly four years elapsed between the accident and the expert's inspection of the site. Because the expert could not supply any reliable evidence as to the elements of the exceptions to the prior written notice law, however, whether the trial court erred in precluding the expert's testimony is a question that does not affect the outcome of this case.

That's all well and good, but it seems to me the Court ignored the elephant in the room--the manhole cover's alleged depression.   It sounds like it was pretty severe.   I can't help but wonder if all of this could been avoided if the manhole cover had sought out treatment.  A little preventative Prozac could have done a lot of good in this sad, sad case.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834516c2469e200d83541253269e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Little Prozac Goes A Long Way:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Criminal Law in New York

My Articles

____________________


  • Faculty @ SPU

  • Blog Awards Winner

  • The 2007 Weblog Awards

Receive Updates Via Email

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Law.com Newswire

disclaimer

  • This site is intended purely as a resource guide for educational and informational purposes and is not intended to provide specific legal advice. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney in your state. The use and receipt of the information offered on this site is not intended to create, nor does it create, an attorney-client relationship.

    Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or otherwise. However, please be advised that an attorney-client relationship is not created through the act of sending electronic mail to me.

    The comments on this blog are solely the opinions of the individuals leaving them. In no way does Legal Antics or Nicole L. Black endorse, condone, agree with, sponsor, etc. these comments.

    Further, any information provided on this blog or in the comments should be taken at your own risk.