- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Pettinato v. EQR-RiverTower, LLC
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03406
Background
Plaintiff Laura Pettinato was injured when she experienced a fainting episode while attempting to exit her shower-tub in her apartment. As she slipped with one foot out of the tub, she was cut by the bottom track of the shower door. The building had been sold by defendants EQR-RiverTower, LLC, and related entities (collectively EQR) to defendant River Tower Owner, LLC, a few months before the accident. River Tower moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims, arguing that Pettinato’s fainting episode was a superseding or sole proximate cause of the accident. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied River Tower’s motion, and River Tower appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the denial of summary judgment. The Court held that River Tower failed to establish that Pettinato’s fainting episode and her attempt to exit the shower-tub during it were the superseding or sole proximate cause of the accident. Under New York law, liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence. A foreseeable intervening act does not sever the causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court found that a fainting episode while in a shower is not so extraordinary or unforeseeable as to constitute a superseding cause that breaks the causal chain between any defective condition in the shower door’s bottom track and the plaintiff’s injuries. River Tower also failed to establish as a matter of law that the shower door was not defective or dangerous.
Takeaways
A plaintiff’s medical episode or physical condition does not automatically constitute a superseding cause that relieves a property owner of liability for a dangerous condition. The question is whether the plaintiff’s action in response to the medical episode was foreseeable given the nature of the hazard. A fainting episode in a shower is a foreseeable event, and a property owner who maintains a shower door with a potentially dangerous bottom track cannot escape liability simply because the plaintiff’s contact with the hazard was precipitated by a medical event rather than ordinary use.
Why It Matters
This decision is important for premises liability practitioners handling cases involving the intersection of medical episodes and dangerous conditions. Property owners cannot rely on a plaintiff’s pre-existing medical condition or an unexpected fainting episode as a complete defense when the dangerous condition—here, a potentially hazardous shower door track—was the instrumentality that caused the injury. The ruling suggests that property owners and building managers should assess the safety of fixtures and installations in the context of foreseeable uses and foreseeable vulnerabilities of occupants, including the possibility that an occupant may experience dizziness, fainting, or loss of balance while using bathroom facilities.