Trimarco v. Klein
Π falls through glass shower door, which he had believed was safety glass. It had been customary for years to use safety glass, but landlord had not replaced it. Custom and usage must be well-defined and in the same calling or business of the actor, that he may be asserted to know it (or be negligent in his ignorance).
Π falls through glass shower door, which he had believed was safety glass. It had been customary for years to use safety glass, but landlord had not replaced it. Custom and usage must be well-defined and in the same calling or business of the actor, that he may be asserted to know it (or be negligent in his ignorance).
- Not following Custom—evidence of negligence
- Expectations—we always expect others to follow custom
- Feasibility—others have replaced the glass
- Knowledge (notice)—People know, or should know about it
Evidence of compliance or non-compliance is probative, not dispositive, of negligence.
Defendant can also show that following custom involved its own risks, but...
No comments:
Post a Comment