Summary
In Tuttle v. Anne LeConey, Inc. (258 A.D.2d 334), the defendant's direction to plaintiff to use a chair on wheels to reach items on a high shelf presented the question of whether defendant unreasonably subjected plaintiff to a patently unsafe condition, a question that is not presented here.
Summary of this case from Pinero v. Rite Aid of New YorkOpinion
February 11, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.).
Plaintiff, an independent contractor retained to organize appellants' home office, alleges that she was injured when she fell from a chair with wheels that she was using to reach an upper shelf containing fabric samples, records and other items she needed to do her job. Plaintiff had on several previous occasions requested a stepladder to reach the upper shelves, but was told by appellants to use the chair instead, which they said was safe. Such knowledge by appellants of plaintiff's use of the chair, and indeed their advice that she do so, raises an issue of fact as to whether they unreasonably exposed plaintiff to an unsafe condition on their premises (see, Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233; compare, Jackson v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 214 A.D.2d 650). That plaintiff was an independent contractor, or that use of such a chair in such a manner posed an open and obvious danger, does not negate appellants' duty to plaintiff but simply raises issues of fact as to her comparative fault (see, Morgan v. Genrich, 239 A.D.2d 919).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.