Court of Appeals clarification to 1104(b) and reckless disregard standard will make defense of cases more difficult for municipalities.

The Court of Appeals determines when the ordinary negligence or reckless disregard standards apply to emergency vehicles. In its February 17, 2011 decision in Kabir v County of Monroe, the Court of Appeals altered the landscape of liability for emergency vehicles by articulating when an emergency vehicle engaged in an emergency operation is subject to the ordinary negligence standard and when the reckless disregard standard applies. In Kabir, a police officer, on his way to a respond to a burglary alarm, rear-ended the vehicle in front of him. Prior to the Court’s decision in Kabir, it was generally believed that, while the driver of an emergency vehicle still had to be careful, as long as the driver was engaged in an emergency operation, he or she would not be liable for any accidents, injuries etc. unless the driver drove “with reckless disregard for the safety of others.” The Court of Appeals has said that the reckless disregard standard is a heightened standard which “demands more than a showing of a lack of ‘due care under the circumstances’ typically associated with ordinary negligence. It requires evidence that ‘the actor has intentionally done an act of unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probably that harm would follow’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494 [1994]) However in Kabir the Court of Appeals held that the reckless disregard standard only applies in the situations enumerated in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), which states that the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle can

1. Stop, stand or park irrespective of the provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law
2. Drive through a red light, flashing red light or stop sign as long as it slows down
3. Exceed the speed limit as long as he or she does not endanger life or property
4. Disregard regulations governing directions or movement or turning in specified directions.

Court of Appeals looks at "nexus" between owner and plaintiff in Labor Law Section 240(1) case: Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio Assoc.

On July 1, 2004, the New York State Court of Appeals decided Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio Assoc. 2004 WL 1472625. In that matter, a cable technician alleged a Labor Law Section 240(1) claim against a property owner as a result of a fall from a ladder while performing maintenance on equipment attached to the owner's property. The owner had no knowledge that the plaintiff was called to the property, because a tenant had inquired about the cable service.
Interestingly, the first issue addressed by the Court of Appeals was the relationship between the owner and plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that Labor Law Section 240(1) did not apply to the plaintiff, because there was no "nexus" between the owner and the plaintiff. The Court determined that the owner cannot be charged with the duty to provide a safe place to work to a worker of whom it is totally unaware. After determining that no nexus existed so as to hold the owner liable, the Court determined that the plaintiff was performing routine maintenance when he fell from the ladder. Accordingly, the Labor Law Section 240 claim failed as a matter of law.
The Abbatiello Court also clarified its recent Labor Law decision in Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of NYC, and stated that the statute imposes absolute liability on owners for any breach of a statutory duty that proximately caused the injuries.

Additional Defense Updates:

Does the Negligence of the Additional Insured Preclude Coverage Under the Additional Insured Endorsement?

MacDonald v. City of Schenectady and the Application of the “Open and Obvious” Defense

Court of Appeals Refuses to Strictly Interpret Labor Law Section 240(1) in Striegel v. Hillcrest Heights Development Corp

The Application of the “Open and Obvious” Defense in New York

The Court of Appeals Examines the Relative Obligations of Insurance Carriers Covering the Same Risk

The Court of Appeals in CASTRO Construes the List of Injuries that Qualify as "GRAVE"