Segal McCambridge Secures Summary Judgment Dismissing “Zone of Danger” Claim in New York Premises Liability Action

Segal McCambridge Shareholder Carla Varriale-Barker and Associate Léa Caurand secured summary judgment dismissing a plaintiff's "zone of danger" claim in a premises liability action pending in Nassau County Supreme Court.

The case arose after a child was allegedly injured when a piece of glass fell from a chandelier during a private event. The injured child's younger sibling asserted a separate claim under New York's "zone of danger" doctrine, alleging that he witnessed the accident and was entitled to recover damages for emotional distress.

On behalf of their client, Carla and Léa successfully demonstrated that plaintiffs could not satisfy the legal requirements necessary to sustain the claim. By developing the factual record through discovery, including deposition testimony and medical records, they established that plaintiffs could not present admissible evidence showing the sibling was within the zone of danger, was exposed to an imminent risk of physical harm or feared for his own safety.

The Court agreed, finding that plaintiffs' arguments regarding the sibling's proximity to the accident were speculative and unsupported by admissible evidence. The Court further determined that the sibling's uncertified medical records did not create a triable issue of fact because they did not establish that defendants breached a duty owed directly to him by unreasonably endangering his physical safety. Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim.

New York's "zone of danger" doctrine applies only in limited circumstances. This decision reinforces the doctrine's strict evidentiary requirements and demonstrates how a carefully developed factual record can resolve these claims before trial.