Parker v. Rust Plant Servs.

This is an excellent case to demonstrate a premise owner’s duty to keep his or her land in a reasonably safe condition during a snow or ice storm. It applies the Court of Appeals case Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, to these facts, providing more insight into an independent contractor’s duty and when it has taken comprehensive and exclusive control of removing snow and ice from a landowner’s property.

In this case, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the defendant independent contractor raised a genuine issue of fact necessary for trial on whether he slipped on ice that was present on his employer’s premises prior to an ice storm. The plaintiff slipped and fell during the progress of an ice storm. The plaintiff attempted to avoid Third Department precedent that provides a premises owner has a sufficient time after precipitation to remedy any dangerous condition; he argued that he slipped on a preexisting ice patch but could not provide evidence of its exact location. The Court held that the plaintiff’s assertion was unsupported and speculative.

The Court also noted that Supreme Court properly granted the independent contractor’s summary judgment motion on the ground that it had not assume a comprehensive and exclusive responsibility to remove ice or snow accumulation from the premises. The independent contractor proffered evidence demonstrating that the landowner retained rights as to the approval of the contractor’s removal procedures, thereby demonstrating that the contractor had not assumed a comprehensive and obligation to removal ice and snow from the premises.

Here is a good summary of Espinal from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.