Question

Landlord-Tenant Relationships. Bhanmattie Kumar was walking on a sidewalk in Flushing, New York, when she tripped over a chipped portion of the sidewalk and fell. The defective sidewalk was in front of a Pretty Girl store—one of a chain of apparel stores headquartered in Brooklyn-on premises leased from PI Associates, LLC. Kumar filed a claim in a New York state court against PI, seeking to recover damages for her injuries. PI filed a cross-claim against Pretty Girl. On what basis would the court impose liability on PI? In what situation would Pretty Girl be the liable party? Is there any circumstance in which Kumar could be at least partially responsible for her injury? Discuss. [Bhanmattie Rajkumar Kumar v PI Associates, LLC, 125 A.D.3d 609, 3 N.Y.S.3d 372 (2 Dept. 2015) (See Landlord-Tenant Relationships.) 

Answer 1

Answer:

• The court would impose liability on PI just if the following conditions were met.
• The chipped segment was in violation of law .
• The chipped segment was an result of careless constucction .
• PI has partial or whole control of the premise and is liable for its repair.
• For the most part when an entity rents an organization from a lessor, the renter is liable for the risk emerging from the premise. In this manner other than the occurrences referenced above, for each other circumstance, Pretty Girl will be the at liable party.
• Kumar could be considered responsible partially if there was an unmistakable or clear and noticeable sign or cautioning about the chipped walkway. On the off chance that Kumar saw it and didn't embrace considerable caution in crossing the area , Kumar could be considered responisible with contributory carelessness or negligence.