The New York Court of Appeals’ recent decision Corsino v.  New York City Trans. Auth. is not a groundbreaking one, but a nice study in foreseeability  (see Appellate Division, First Department decision here).  The plaintiff was seriously injured when she tripped over a cord lying on the
platform as she exited a New York City subway station.  Defendant Transit Authority was in the process of renovating
this station: Defendant contractor CAB Associates had subcontracted
with Defendant Sheldon Electric for electrical work, which in turn
subcontracted with Defendant Villafane for the installation of
telephone lines. Villafane had installed a conduit, and the cord upon
which the injured plaintiff tripped was a drag line that had been
inside the conduit. 

A drag line is used by contractors to pull wire through conduits to the
location of an installation. In this case, the drag line was hanging
from a conduit just above a telephone back plate
located in a column on the platform, awaiting the installation of a
public telephone. It is assumed here that the drag line had been
vandalized in such a manner that it was pulled from the conduit on the
column, and left strewn on the floor.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the dissenting Justices below that a question of fact existed as to whether vandalism was foreseeable and could cause such a hazard and, if so, whether Defendants Transit Authority, Sheldon and CAB Assocs. exercised supervised or safety control over Villafane.  The Court and the dissenting Justices hinged the decision on the plaintiff’s expert.  The expert observed that vandalism is a known danger when work is being performed
on a New York City subway platform, and asserted that the vandalism
that apparently occurred could have been avoided had the subcontractor
installed inexpensive cover plates over the conduit and/or secured the
drag line inside the conduit "at a location out of reach of any vandals
and in manner that it would not come loose with the vibrations of
trains entering and exiting the station."  He also observed that the
amount of excess drag line should have been reduced so that it could
not reach the floor and cause a tripping hazard if it came loose or
became unsecured.