Mombrea et al v. United States of America et al
Filing
58
DECISION AND ORDER granting 42 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendation re 53 . Clerk of Court to close case. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 10/23/2012. (JMB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOEL MOMBREA,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
09-CV-1036-A
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
This personal injury action is brought by the plaintiff, Joel Mombrea, against
the defendant, the United States of America, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1346, pursuant to the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
1331. The action was referred for pretrial proceedings to Magistrate Judge Leslie G.
Foschio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On September 6, 2012, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 53), recommending that the United States’ motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (Dkt. No. 42) be granted. The
Report and Recommendation concludes that plaintiff Mombrea has no viable claim
for negligence because he has insufficient evidence to carry his burden to prove that
the United States caused or had actual or constructive knowledge of the shard of
glass that cut plaintiff’s heel and that was discovered when plaintiff was at a
passenger-screening area in the Buffalo Niagara International Airport.
Plaintiff Joel Mombrea filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on
September 19, 2012. Defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s objections on October
5, 2012. The Court has deemed the matter submitted pursuant to Rule 78(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court must make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections have been made. The Court reviews unobjected-to findings for clear
error. Charvenko v. Barbera, 2011 WL 1659882 at *1 (W.D.N.Y. May 3, 2011).
Pursuant to these standards of review, and after careful consideration of the
parties’ arguments, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and
Recommendation and grants summary judgment to the United States. Plaintiff
Mombrea objects to the Report and Recommendation primarily to assert that he has
ample evidence that defendant United States breached a duty of reasonable
inspection of the passenger screening area in the airport and that he does not need
to prove either actual or constructive knowledge of the unperceived dangerous
condition of the United States’ premises that allegedly caused his injuries. The
Court disagrees.
Under applicable New York law, unless plaintiff Mombrea proves that the
United States caused or had actual or constructive knowledge of the shard of glass
that cut plaintiff’s heel, the United States is not liable in negligence. See generally,
1A Hon. Leon D. Lazer, et al., New York Pattern Jury Instructions – Civil § 2:91 (3rd
2
ed. 2012) (pattern jury instruction for unsafe premises); compare Taylor v. United
States, 121 F.3d 86, 89-91 (2d Cir. 1997) with The American Insurance Company v.
The City of Jamestown, 10-CV-834-A, Dkt. No. 40 (W.D.N.Y. October 22, 2012)
(absence of actual or constructive knowledge in property-damage municipal
negligence action is a limit on the scope of the common law duty of care and is a
threshold legal issue to be determined by the Court).
Plaintiff Mombrea contends that defendant United States’ actual or
constructive knowledge of the shard of glass is legally irrelevant to the United
States’ duty to inspect the passenger screening area in the airport where the shard
of glass was found. However, the plaintiff overlooks that foreseeability of harm is a
necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition, of a prima facie case of
negligence. 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc., 96
N.Y.2d 280, 289 (2001). As the New York Court of Appeals has stated:
foreseeability of harm does not define duty. Absent a duty
running directly to the injured person there can be no liability
in damages, however careless the conduct or foreseeable
the harm . . . .
532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc., 96 N.Y.2d at 289.
All of the evidence upon which the plaintiff relies in support of his objection to the
Report and Recommendation pertains exclusively to the foreseeability of harm, not
actual or constructive knowledge of the shard of glass that cut his heel.
It is well-settled that a landowner or a possessor of premises is not an insurer
against every accident. “Proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do” to
3
trigger negligence liability. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 341 (1928)
(quotation omitted). “Without a duty running directly to the injured person there can
be no liability in damages, however careless the conduct or foreseeable the harm.”
Lauer v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 95, 100 (2000).
Plaintiff Mombrea concedes that he has no proof defendant United States had
actual or constructive knowledge of the shard of glass that cut plaintiff’s heel.
Without that knowledge, the United States owed no duty of care with respect to the
shard of glass running to plaintiff and is not liable to plaintiff in negligence under
New York law for the injury. See The American Insurance Company v. The City of
Jamestown, 10-CV-834-A, Dkt. No. 40 (W.D.N.Y. October 22, 2012). “In the
absence of duty, there is no breach and without a breach there is no liability.” Pulka
v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 782 (1976). For these reasons, and for all of the
reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation, the
United States’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 42) is granted. The Clerk
shall enter judgment for defendant United States of America and terminate the case.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Richard J. Arcara
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED:October 23, 2012
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?