The opinion of the court was delivered by: VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge
Plaintiff Barbara Katersky ("Katersky") claims in this diversity
jurisdiction action that, while boarding a flight of defendant American
Airlines, Inc. ("American"), she fell and suffered injuries on an airport
jetway owned and operated by American. Katersky alleges that American was
negligent in failing to use reasonable care to maintain the jetway in a
safe condition and in failing to warn her of the existence of a defective
or dangerous condition. American has moved for summary judgment on the
grounds that undisputed evidence demonstrates that American did not
breach any duty of care it may have owed to Katersky. Because genuine
disputes of material facts exist between the parties, the Court denies
American's motion for summary judgment.
Katersky, her husband, and their son were scheduled to fly from O'Hare
International Airport in Chicago ("O'Hare") to LaGuardia Airport in New
York on an American flight on August 31, 2002. As they were walking down the jetway to board the
airplane, Katersky fell down and sustained fractures to her left arm and
shoulder.*fn1
Two channels four inches wide and three-quarters of an inch deep run
along the sides of the jetway's floor. The channels are used to retract
the jetway away from the airplane. The main floor of the jetway is
carpeted but the side channels are not. It was on one of these side
channels that Katersky apparently tripped when she fell.
American claims that in June 2002 it installed warning signs in the
jetway at issue here calling attention to the uneven surfaces on the
jetway's floor. American relies on an unsigned Facilities Maintenance
Work Order printed on June 22, 2002 (the "Work Order") and an affidavit
from American's facilities maintenance manager at O'Hare as proof that it
had installed warning signs. Katersky and her husband assert that at no
time before or immediately after the accident did they observe any
warning signs in the jetway.
Katersky filed this action against American for failing to use
reasonable care to maintain the jetway in a safe condition and for
failing to warn passengers of the existence of a dangerous and defective
condition. American now moves for summary judgment on Katersky's claims. II. DISCUSSION
The Court may grant summary judgment when, upon review of all the facts
in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no
genuine issue as to any material fact exists and the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R. CIV. P. 56(c);
SCS Communications, Inc. v. Herrick Co., Inc., 360 F.3d 329,
338 (2d Cir. 2004)."Only disputes over facts that might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the
entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If a reasonable jury could rule in favor of
the non-moving party, summary judgment is improper. See id.
An award of summary judgment is exceptionally rare in negligence cases,
because a negligence claim typically involves an inquiry into the
reasonableness of a party's conduct, a matter that generally implicates a
question of fact for a jury. See King v. Crossland Sav. Bank,
lll F.3d 251, 259 (2d Cir. 1997); Hong v. Maher, No. 02 CIV.
7825, 2004 WL 771127 (S.D.N.Y Apr. 13, 2004). That said, there may be
some negligence suits for which summary judgment is appropriate.
The Court will apply the substantive law of the forum state, New York, to this diversity action. See McGrath v. Toys
"R" Us, Inc., 356 F.3d 246, 249 (2d Cir. 2004). But while the
parties rely on New York law to establish the standards for negligence,
New York State courts hearing tort suits involving citizens of different
states apply the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred
in this case, Illinois when neither party resides in that
jurisdiction and there is a conflict of laws. See Hong, 2004 WL 771127,
at *2 n.1; Maizous v. Garraffa, No. 00 Cv. 4895, 2002 WL
1471556 at *3 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2002); Dorsey v.
Yantambwe, 715 N.Y.S.2d 566 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 2000). Under both
New York and Illinois law, to prevail on a negligence action the
plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care to the
plaintiff, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach
proximately caused the injury to the plaintiff. See Murray v. New
York City Hous. Auth., 703 N.Y.S.2d 140, 141 (App. Div. 1st Dep't
2000); Hills v. Bridgeview Little League Ass'n,
745 N.E.2d 1166, 1178 (Ill. 2000). For purposes of the present motion for
summary judgment, the existence of a genuine issue of material fact is not
affected by any possible difference in substantive law between the two
states, and thus the Court will not now delve into potential conflicts
between New York and Illinois negligence law. American argues that "the undisputed material evidence clearly
demonstrates" that Katersky has failed to establish that American
breached its duty to her. (Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment dated January 1, 2004, at 5.) American
asserts that Katersky has not demonstrated that the jetway was defective,
contained a dangerous condition, or that the jetway's design was
inherently dangerous. Additionally, American argues that even if the
jetway was dangerous or defective, any such condition was open and
obvious, which would generally eliminate the need for American to warn
Katersky about the danger.
Finally, American argues that the Work Order establishes that it
installed warning signs on the jetway before Katersky's accident.
American points to the affidavit of Ed Krzeminski ("Krzeminski"), who
oversaw facilities maintenance at American's O'Hare terminal in 2001 and
2002. Krzeminski states that the relevant warning signs were installed in
the jetway in June 2002, two months before Katersky's accident.
Katersky argues that American has essentially acknowledged the
dangerousness of the jetway by developing a plan to install warning signs
on its jetways to call attention to the uneven floors. Katersky maintains
that the channels on the jetway floor were not obvious, and that American
failed to provide proper warning as to their existence and danger. Katersky interprets the Work Order not as proof that the signs were
installed but rather, because the Work Order is not signed, as proof that
the signs were not installed before her accident. Katersky and her
husband also indicated in affidavits that they did not see any warning
signs on the jetway either before or immediately ...