Torts Reading 9:24 PDF

Preview

Summary

Torts Readings...

Description

Torts Reading 9/24 Trimarco v. Klein -Caption:  NY COA, 1982 -Parties:  Π = tenant ∆ = landlord -Facts:  Π was getting out of shower & glass door breaks injuring him  Π was unaware & uninformed it was regular glass, not tempered  Π sues ∆ for damages -History:  TC finds for π  Appellate Division reverses finding for ∆  NY COA reverses, remands for new trial finding for π o Ruled TC had enough evidence to send to jury & instructions were correct to consider custom -Issue:  Can an individual use custom or common usage/practice as evidence for his negligence claim? -Holding/Rule:  Allowed to use custom for evidence in a negligence case as long as evidence is NOT binding because final decision must rely upon the traditional reasonable person standard. -Notes:  Costume is allowed to help prove an individual has fallen below the reasonable care std.  Jury must decide if usage evidence & reasonable person std. to decide if ∆ is negligent  Usage and custom can be very useful if used properly (don’t rely solely on it) Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. -Caption:  City Court of NY, New York County, 1941 -Parties:  Π = mother (hit w/ two children by rolling car) ∆ = driver -Facts:  “Hoodlum” robs an individual and runs away jumping into ∆’s cab  Robber puts a gun to ∆’s head telling him to drive or he’ll shoot  ∆ slams on brakes & jumps out of car w/o putting emergency brake on  Cab rolls, hops sidewalk, and his π and her two children (minor injuries)  Π sues ∆ for negligence claim -History:

 TC dismisses claim  NYC City Court reverses & reinstates π’s claim but in favor of ∆ -Issue:  Is the standard of care for an individual in reasonable circumstances the same as an individual in an emergency situation? -Holding/Rule:  Negligence is measured by the circumstances surrounding the event -Notes: May have ended differently if ∆ created the situation or π’s suffered serious injuries Roberts v. State of Louisiana -Caption:  Louisiana COA, 1981 -Parties:  Π = 75 year old man ∆ = state where post office was (employed Burson) -Facts:  Burson was a blind man hired to operate concession stand  Burson leaves stand to use restroom but didn’t use his cane on way & collides w/ π  Π sues state for negligence under respondeat superior (“let the master answer”) -History:  TC dismisses claim  LA COA affirms dismissal -Issue:  Is there a different reasonable person standard of care in negligence claims when an accused individual is physically handicap? -Holding/Rule:  Handicapped individual’s conduct must be reasonable regarding “his knowledge of his infirmity, which is treated merely as one of the circumstances under which he acts”  Blind men can’t be held to the same standard of care  Π failed to show Burson was negligent in walking manner or not paying attention -Notes:  Burson relied on facial sense since he knew the building very well (experts testified this is normal for blind people not to use their cane when in familiar buildings)...