In a significant win for our client, the Supreme Court, Queens County granted summary judgment in a slip-and-fall action involving a serious ankle fracture. By thoroughly developing evidence that demonstrated no liability, the Court’s decision reinforces two important defense principles: (1) the Workers’ Compensation Law bar where a defendant qualifies as a special employer, and (2) the limited duty owed with respect to conditions that are inherent, open, and obvious in an industrial facility. Critically, in our answer we asserted the special employee defense, so that it was not waived and set up our summary judgment motion.
Plaintiff, a temporary housekeeper from a staffing agency, alleged she slipped in the women’s locker room of our client, USDA-regulated meat-processing facility. She claimed the floor was slick with grease and meat byproducts tracked in from production areas. Plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits from the staffing agency following the accident.
Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady Partner Jeffrey Migdalen moved for summary judgment on two independent grounds: (1) plaintiff was its special employee, rendering workers’ compensation her exclusive remedy, and (2) the condition was inherent to the nature of a meat-processing locker room, open and obvious, and reasonably anticipated.
The Court found that our client established its prima facie burden under Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6). The record demonstrated that our client controlled the “manner, details, and ultimate result” of plaintiff’s work, provided her equipment and protective gear, assigned supervisors, and dictated the means and methods of her daily duties. The staffing contract did not undermine these facts, nor did plaintiff’s argument that agency personnel occasionally visited the facility. The Court found that because plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits and defendant qualified as her special employer, the negligence action was barred.
Separately, the Court held that our client was independently entitled to summary judgment based on the nature of the condition and plaintiff’s admitted awareness of it. GCKB partner Jeffrey Migdalen used plaintiff’s testimony that she routinely encountered grease and food byproducts on floors throughout the facility, that “the grease comes back quickly,” and that “there’s always grease” to demonstrate plaintiff’s awareness of the condition. In addition, she acknowledged she could feel and hear debris under her boots as she approached the bathroom she was on her way to clean.
Plaintiff attempted to defeat summary judgment by arguing that the defendant could not claim the condition was inherent while simultaneously relying on USDA-mandated procedures intended to prevent it. She also argued that the condition was transient, and that the absence of photographs or documentation undermined defendant’s showing. The Court rejected these arguments as conclusory and unsupported by admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s own testimony undermined her theory of transience, and nothing in the record suggested that USDA sanitation requirements eliminated, rather than managed, the risks inherent to a food-processing environment.
The Court concluded that plaintiff’s admissions demonstrated that the condition was open and obvious, inherent to operations, and reasonably anticipated by a worker in her role and the Court reiterated that a landowner has no duty to warn against an inherent condition incidental to the nature of the property. Relying on Waiters v N. Trust Co. of NY, 29 AD3d 325 (1st Dept 2006), the Court held that absent proof of a cause of the fall other than the “inherently slippery” condition of the floor, no negligence claim could be maintained. Further, consistent with Monahan v NY City Dept. of Educ., 47 AD3d 690 (2d Dept 2008), the alleged defect was open, obvious, and readily observable through the reasonable use of one’s senses, and therefore not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. Because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue that the condition was anything other than open, obvious, and incidental to the nature of the facility, summary judgment was warranted on this basis as well.
Our aggressive defense gave the Court 2 prongs to grant summary judgment—each fully dispositive. Our skilled GCKB team of attorneys always looks for every legal and factual ground that we can argue for our clients. Let us do that for you. Should you have any questions, please contact:
Thomas Bona, Partner tbona@gerberciano.com
Jeffrey Migdalen, Partner jmigdalen@gerberciano.com
