The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has ruled on a significant slip-and-fall case involving Brooklyn Hospital Center (BHC) and a patient who fell in the hospital's vestibule. The court's decision clarifies the application of New York's common-law storm in progress rule, which has implications for how property owners manage conditions caused by weather inside their buildings. This ruling affects not only BHC but also other property owners in New York.
The case, Rowland v. Brooklyn Hospital Center (Docket No. 2023-09254), centers on an incident that occurred on November 5, 2018, when Tracy Rowland, the plaintiff, slipped and fell on water in the hospital's vestibule while using crutches. At the time, it was raining outside, and Rowland alleged that BHC was negligent in maintaining the area where she fell. This led her to seek damages for her personal injuries.
After the completion of discovery, BHC sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the storm in progress rule protected it from liability. This rule states that property owners are not liable for accidents caused by snow or ice accumulation during an ongoing storm. The Supreme Court initially denied BHC's motion on June 21, 2023, and later reaffirmed this decision on May 1, 2024, after BHC requested reargument. BHC subsequently appealed both orders.
The court's ruling, delivered by Justice Janice A. Taylor, emphasized that the storm in progress rule does not apply to accidents occurring inside a building due to tracked-in precipitation. The court stated, "the storm in progress rule does not apply to an accident that occurs inside of a building as a result of tracked-in precipitation or other conditions." This decision marks a significant clarification in New York law regarding property owners' responsibilities.
In its opinion, the court explained that the origins of the storm in progress rule stem from cases involving slip-and-fall accidents on railroad properties. Historically, the rule was established to relieve property owners from liability for conditions that were impossible to manage during a storm. However, the court noted that this rationale does not extend to conditions inside buildings, where property owners have more control over maintaining safe environments.
The court highlighted that BHC failed to demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the wet floor in the vestibule where Rowland slipped. The hospital did not provide evidence of when the area was last cleaned or inspected before the incident. The court concluded that BHC's lack of evidence regarding its maintenance practices meant it could not claim immunity under the storm in progress rule.
As a result of this ruling, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to deny BHC's motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the appeal from the earlier order, as it was superseded by the later order made upon reargument.
This ruling has important implications for property owners in New York. It establishes that they must maintain safe conditions inside their buildings, regardless of ongoing weather conditions outside. This means that property owners cannot rely solely on the storm in progress rule to avoid liability for injuries caused by conditions tracked in from outside.
The decision also reinforces the standard of care expected of property owners regarding slip-and-fall incidents. They must take reasonable steps to address hazards created by rain or snow tracked into their premises, even during a storm. This ruling may lead to increased scrutiny of property maintenance practices and could result in more liability claims against property owners who fail to adequately address tracked-in conditions.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether BHC will seek to appeal this decision to a higher court. The court's ruling is significant and may prompt other parties involved in similar slip-and-fall cases to reassess their legal strategies regarding the storm in progress rule. Additionally, the implications of this ruling could extend to other related cases pending in New York courts.