Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Committee

Last updated
A cracked sidewalk on 11th Street in Manhattan Cracked sidewalk in Manhattan.jpg
A cracked sidewalk on 11th Street in Manhattan

The Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Committee is an organization created by the New York State Trial Lawyers Association to map the sidewalks of New York City for defects capable of causing personal injury. [1] The maps produced by the Committee and delivered to the Department of Transportation essentially negated the effect of a 1979 change to the city's Administrative Code that barred tort actions against the city unless the city was notified of the defects more than 15 days prior to the accident.

Contents

The city paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in civil judgments over the next two decades before a 2003 law shifted liability to adjacent property owners. The Committee ceased producing maps after the new law, and the use of the maps in injuries predating the change was substantially limited by a 2008 decision of New York's highest court.

The Code

New York City Administrative Code § 7-201(c)(2), passed in 1979 by the New York City council and codified in 1980, bars personal injury lawsuits against the city arising from sidewalk or roadway defects, unless the city was notified of the defect at least 15 days prior to the injury. [2] The administrative code (as amended in 2006) provides:

No civil action shall be maintained against the city for damage to property or injury to person or death sustained in consequence of any street, highway, bridge, wharf, culvert, sidewalk or crosswalk, or any part or portion of any of the foregoing including any encumbrances thereon or attachments thereto, being out of repair, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed, unless it appears that written notice of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition, was actually given to the commissioner of transportation or any person or department authorized by the commissioner to receive such notice, or where there was previous injury to person or property as a result of the existence of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition, and written notice thereof was given to a city agency, or there was written acknowledgement from the city of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition, and there was a failure or neglect within fifteen days after the receipt of such notice to repair or remove the defect, danger or obstruction complained of, or the place otherwise made reasonably safe. [3]

The survey

The organization was created in 1982. [1] The "Big Apple" in its name is a reference to the nickname for New York City. The committee's maps were prepared annually and submitted to the city's Department of Transportation. [1] The Transportation department initially refused to accept the maps, but was forced to do so by a court order. [1] [4] The city's appeal was denied without opinion. [5]

The organization produced an average of 5,000 maps per year, covering all five boroughs and 13,000 miles of sidewalk, and noting more than 700,000 sidewalk hazards. [1] Viewing most of the defects as minor or non-existent, the city began filing the maps away unread, in an attempt to argue in court that the unread maps did not provide "meaningful notice". [1] A 2002 report by Michael Cardozo, a lawyer for the city's corporation states that "Relying on maps that provide hundreds of thousands of squiggles, but no meaningful information about sidewalk defects, plaintiffs have been able to sue the city successfully for even the most trivial sidewalk imperfections." [1]

Use in court

In some cases, courts held that both the current map and earlier maps could be and were admissible in trial as proof of negligence. [6] In other cases, the city was granted a directed verdict when the plaintiff's claim was based on a defect noted in a prior map but not in the most recent. [7] In contrast, in cases where the sidewalk defect was absent from the maps, cases have been dismissed by summary judgment. [8] Any ambiguity arising from the symbols on the map has (until 2008) generally been a question for the jury. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

There were 2,729 sidewalk injury suits against the city in 2006 (resulting in $55.5 million in recovery), compared to 3,482 in 2003 ($68 million). [1] Recoveries between 1997 and 2006 totaled $600 million. [1] Sidewalk injuries are the most common cause of lawsuits against the city. [1]

Since 2003

A 2003 law shifted the liability from the city to the adjacent property owners, substantially decreasing the number of suits filed. [1] The 2003 law applies only to sidewalks; the city remains liable for hazards in streets. [16] The production of maps ceased after the new 2003 law, but—as of 2009—there are still thousands of cases utilizing the maps from injuries predating the law. [1]

A December 18, 2008 ruling by the New York Court of Appeals, D'Onofrio v. City of New York, significantly lessened the liability the city faces as a result of the maps. [1] [17] A 5-2 decision against the combined cases of two plaintiffs written by Judge Robert S. Smith found that the photographic evidence conflicted with the map in one case and that the map symbols were too illegible in the other. [1] The ruling held that for the city to be liable, the marking on the map must match the actual conditions (e.g., the city would not be liable for a hole if the map denoted a crack). [1] D'Onofrio substantially decreased the number of cases that would reach a jury:

Plaintiffs in Shaperonovitch argue that the symbol on the map is "ambiguous" and that its interpretation is for the jury. We disagree; we do not see how a rational jury could find that this mark conveyed any information at all. Because the map did not give the City notice of the defect, the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law." [17]

Judge Theodore J. Jones, in his dissent, stated:

Mapping hazards is hardly an exact science. Although the symbols on the Big Apple maps were not designed to give notice of every unique defect found on the sidewalks and roads of New York City, each symbol on the map legend represents a general category of potentially hazardous defects (e.g., "Hole or hazardous depression," "Raised or uneven portion of sidewalk," "Pothole or other hazard"). Clearly, if no symbol or a completely different symbol is used on the map, the City does not receive notice of a given defect. It follows that where the defect could reasonably be encompassed by the symbol used on the map, the question of whether the City received notice of that defect is for the fact finder and not one that can be easily answered as a matter of law. [17]

Leadership and governance

Related Research Articles

Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Although the word "product" has broad connotations, product liability as an area of law is traditionally limited to products in the form of tangible personal property.

In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but-for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show, a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause. For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action.

Assumption of risk is a defense, specifically an affirmative defense, in the law of torts, which bars or reduces a plaintiff's right to recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which the plaintiff was participating at the time of their injury.

International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case, is a 1918 decision of the United States Supreme Court that enunciated the misappropriation doctrine of federal intellectual property common law: a "quasi-property right" may be created against others by one's investment of effort and money in an intangible thing, such as information or a design. The doctrine is highly controversial and criticized by many legal scholars, but it has its supporters.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

A personal injury lawyer is a lawyer who provides legal services to those who claim to have been injured, physically or psychologically, as a result of the negligence of another person, company, government agency or any entity. Personal injury lawyers primarily practice in the area of law known as tort law. Examples of common personal injury claims include injuries from slip and fall accidents, traffic collisions, defective products, workplace injuries and professional malpractice.

A statute of repose, like a statute of limitations, is a statute that cuts off certain legal rights if they are not acted on by a specified deadline.

A mass tort is a civil action involving numerous plaintiffs against one or a few defendants in state or federal court. The lawsuits arise out of the defendants causing numerous injuries through the same or similar act of harm.

Premises liability is the liability that a landowner or occupier has for certain torts that occur on their land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Protection Act 1987</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which made important changes to the consumer law of the United Kingdom. Part 1 implemented European Community (EC) Directive 85/374/EEC, the product liability directive, by introducing a regime of strict liability for damage arising from defective products. Part 2 created government powers to regulate the safety of consumer products through Statutory Instruments. Part 3 defined a criminal offence of giving a misleading price indication.

Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England and Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California involving an injury caused by an exploding bottle of Coca-Cola. It was an important case in the development of the common law of product liability in the United States, not so much for the actual majority opinion, but for the concurring opinion of California Supreme Court justice Roger Traynor.

The avoidable consequences rule is a concept in United States jurisprudence which comes from a common-law rule barring recovery of damages that a tort victim "could have avoided by the use of reasonable effort or expenditure after the commission of the tort." This concept recognizes as fact, that if a plaintiff is injured by a defendant, that the plaintiff must take reasonable steps to avoid aggravating the injuries caused by the defendant.

  1. Except as stated in Subsection (2), one injured by the tort of another is not entitled to recover damages for any harm that he could have avoided by the use of reasonable effort or expenditure after the commission of the tort.
  2. One is not prevented from recovering damages for a particular harm resulting from a tort if the tortfeasor intended the harm or was aware of it and was recklessly disregardful of it, unless the injured person with knowledge of the danger of the harm intentionally or heedlessly failed to protect his own interests.
<i>Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.</i>

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc, was a California torts case in which the Supreme Court of California dealt with the torts regarding product liability and warranty breaches. The primary legal issue of the case was to determine whether a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. The case was originally heard in a San Diego district court where the verdict was against the manufacturer. This verdict was appealed by the manufacturer to the Supreme Court of California which was presided by Gibson, C. J., Schauer, J., McComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., and Peek, J., and the opinion was delivered by Judge Roger J Traynor.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 John Eligon. 2009, January 3. "Ruling Deals a Setback to Sidewalk Injury Lawsuits in New York". The New York Times.
  2. ↑ Center for New York City Law. 1996, February/March. "Current Development: City Torts: Proximate Cause: Broken Street Light not Proximate Cause of Assault". 2City Law 9.
  3. ↑ "New York City Administrative Code Section 7-201 Actions against the city - Actions Against The City [ permanent dead link ]".
  4. ↑ Big Apple Pothole & Sidewalk Protection Committee, Inc. v. Ameruso., 110 Misc. 2d 688.
  5. ↑ Big Apple Pothole & Sidewalk Protection Comm. v. Ameruso, 56 N.Y.2d 507.
  6. ↑ Center for New York City Law. 2000, January/February. "Current Developments: City Torts". 6City Law 21.
  7. ↑ Katz v. City of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 241.
  8. ↑ Mendelsohn v. City of New York, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19769.
  9. ↑ Bradley v City of New York, 38 AD3d 581, 832 N.Y.S.2d 257.
  10. ↑ Reid v City of New York, 36 AD3d 784, 828 N.Y.S.2d 224.
  11. ↑ Vertsberger v City of New York, 34 AD3d 453, 824 N.Y.S.2d 346.
  12. ↑ Cassuto v City of New York, 23 AD3d 423, 805 N.Y.S.2d 580.
  13. ↑ Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 789 N.Y.S.2d 729.
  14. ↑ Blas v R.M.H. Realty Corp., 5 AD3d 416, 772 N.Y.S.2d 606.
  15. ↑ Quinn v City of New York, 305 AD2d 570, 761 N.Y.S.2d 231.
  16. ↑ Michael Pollack. 2008, January 6. "Slips, Falls, and Potholes". The New York Times.
  17. 1 2 3 D'Onofrio v. City of New York, 901 N.E.2d 744.
  18. ↑ "Stephan H. Peskin" . Retrieved July 13, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.