Maintenance Contractor: No Duty to Maintain? (NY)

The New York Court of Appeals has ruled that a snow removal contractor does not assume the duty of a landowner to maintain premises safely.  Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136 (2002).  While the contractor could be held liable if it created or exacerbated a dangerous condition, it generally will have no further duty if it properly performs its contractual obligations.  Whether this  principle extends to other maintenance type contracts is the subject of the recent decision in  Ayala v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

The Ayala plaintiff was injured when she allegedly tripped and fell on a metal ramp that was separated from the threshold of a door leading to the vault while at work at KeyBank.  She claimed that she told a maintenance services provider, Johnson Controls, about the ramp.  She brought suit against Johnson and as well as another bank contractor, Diebold, Inc., which provided repair and maintenance services for bank equipment – including the ramp, if asked to do so.

Diebold moved for summary judgment arguing that it did not perform any work on the ramp nor was it asked to do so.  Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that she had made complaints about the ramp to a maintenance person hired by Johnson and that no one responded to her complaint.  The Supreme Court denied Diebold’s motion finding an issue of fact as to whether Diebold owed plaintiff a duty of care.

The Second Department reversed and granted Diebold’s motion for summary judgment applying an Espinal analysis.  Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff was not a party to Diebold’s service contract, and it, thus, did not owe her a duty of care. Moreover, there was no evidence that Diebold was responsible for the instrument of harm, that plaintiff detrimentally relied upon Diebold’s continued performance of duties under the contract, or that Diebold displaced KeyBank’s duty to maintain the premises safely.

While we often see the court apply an Espinal analysis in cases where a snow plowing contractor is brought into an action involving a trip and fall due to snow and ice, in this case, the Appellate Division applied its analysis to a maintenance service provider.  The facts are slightly different  but the duty – or lack thereof – is the same.

Thanks to Anne Henry for her contribution.

For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at .