Based upon the undisputed fact that plaintiff was talking to defendant while the latter was sitting at the exercise machine, plaintiff should have anticipated defendant's imminent activation of the machine and appreciated the readily observable danger of leaning his hand on the inside of the machine's frame. In these circumstances, defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff that he was about to activate the machine (see, Blecher v Holiday Health & Fitness Ctr.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
SIGLER v. BERNSTEIN
288 A.D.2d 113 (2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 47
RICHARD A. SIGLER, Appellant, v. BARRY M. BERNSTEIN, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided November 20, 2001.
Decided November 20, 2001.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
