Olsen v. Town of Richfield
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Casey, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The majority concludes that the presence of pedestrians on the bridge was entirely foreseeable and that defendant County of Otsego owed a duty of care to such users. Plaintiff, however, was not a mere pedestrian on the bridge and he was not injured by a condition which posed any danger to pedestrians. Plaintiff was injured when he dove from the bridge into shallow water and there is no evidence in the record that the County had any knowledge that people dove from the bridge. In Zmieske v State of New York (180 AD2d 894, 895), this court…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Boltax v. Joy Day CampNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Howard v. Poseidon Pools, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Kriz v. SchumNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Smith v. StarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Mesick v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.