Did Missing Handrail Violate Law?

December 1, 2008

LVT Number: #20853

Tenant sued landlord for negligence. Tenant fell in the building stairwell. She claimed that her injury would have been prevented if there was a handrail in the stairwell. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. Landlord claimed that no handrail was needed, so it wasn't responsible for tenant's injuries. The court ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and lost. Tenant raised a question of fact as to whether the lack of a handrail in the stairwell was a structural defect that violated a specific statutory provision and contributed to her fall.

Tenant sued landlord for negligence. Tenant fell in the building stairwell. She claimed that her injury would have been prevented if there was a handrail in the stairwell. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. Landlord claimed that no handrail was needed, so it wasn't responsible for tenant's injuries. The court ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and lost. Tenant raised a question of fact as to whether the lack of a handrail in the stairwell was a structural defect that violated a specific statutory provision and contributed to her fall. Therefore, a trial was needed to determine whether landlord was responsible for tenant's injuries.

Pimentel v. Marx Realty & Improvement Co., Inc.: NYLJ, 11/3/08, p. 25, col. 2 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Lippman, PJ, Mazzarelli, Williams, Buckley, Renwick, JJ)

Topics

More like this