Summary Judgment for Homeowner Denied Where Houseguest Was Injured While Crossing Homeowner’s Cattle Guard.

The plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell on a cattle guard on the defendant's premises while he was visiting her home for a dinner party.  He parked his car in the street and walked across the defendant’s driveway and cattle guard to access the house. When he was crossing the cattle guard on the return trip to his car, the plaintiff’s foot slipped on one of the pipes, and he was injured. The plaintiff filed an action against the defendant (who became the administrator of the estate of the deceased defendant), seeking damages for his injuries. The defendant sought summary judgment on the grounds that the cattle guard was an open and obvious condition that was not inherently dangerous. The court denied the motion, ruling that whether a condition is open and obvious is generally a question for the jury. The court also ruled that the finding of an open and obvious hazard was never fatal to a plaintiff’s claim. Rather, it was relevant only to the question of the plaintiff’s comparative fault. Because the defendant had not made a prima facie showing that the premises were maintained in a reasonably safe condition, summary judgment was not appropriate.  Reitner v. Hauser, No. 151241/13, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4223 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 23, 2014).