Cain v. George case brief summary
411 F.2d 572 (1969)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff parents of deceased child, in a diversity case, brought a wrongful death action for the death of their son who died of carbon monoxide poisoning while a guest in defendant's motel. A chair next to the heater had burned and was smoldering. Plaintiffs alleged that the gas heater in the motel room was defective because it had been improperly installed, was improperly vented, and had never been inspected or cleaned since the time of installation. A jury verdict in the form of answers to special interrogatories found that the death was not proximately caused by the negligence of defendants, and that his death was due to an unavoidable accident. The district court entered a final judgment for defendants and dismissed the action on its merits, from which plaintiffs appealed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the dismissal of a wrongful death action by plaintiff parents of deceased child against defendant motel owners because the district court did not err in charging the jury that defendants owed decedent a duty of ordinary care instead of a high degree of care, the testimony of appellees regarding other occupants was properly admitted, and because an interrogatory given to the jury did not constitute reversible error.
***
FACTS
411 F.2d 572 (1969)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff parents of deceased child
sought review of the decision of the district court, which entered a
final judgment in favor of defendant motel owners, and dismissed the
action on its merits. Plaintiffs, in a diversity of citizenship case,
brought a wrongful death action for the death of their son who died
of carbon monoxide poisoning while a guest in appellees' motel.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff parents of deceased child, in a diversity case, brought a wrongful death action for the death of their son who died of carbon monoxide poisoning while a guest in defendant's motel. A chair next to the heater had burned and was smoldering. Plaintiffs alleged that the gas heater in the motel room was defective because it had been improperly installed, was improperly vented, and had never been inspected or cleaned since the time of installation. A jury verdict in the form of answers to special interrogatories found that the death was not proximately caused by the negligence of defendants, and that his death was due to an unavoidable accident. The district court entered a final judgment for defendants and dismissed the action on its merits, from which plaintiffs appealed.
DISCUSSION
- On review, the court affirmed the decision because the district court did not err in charging the jury that defendants owed decedent a duty of ordinary care instead of a high degree of care under state law, the testimony of appellees regarding other occupants of the room was properly admitted, and because the submission of the interrogatory did not constitute reversible error.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the dismissal of a wrongful death action by plaintiff parents of deceased child against defendant motel owners because the district court did not err in charging the jury that defendants owed decedent a duty of ordinary care instead of a high degree of care, the testimony of appellees regarding other occupants was properly admitted, and because an interrogatory given to the jury did not constitute reversible error.
***
FACTS
-Wrongful death case; person staying in hotel room died of CO poisoning; π claim that heater was defective.
-Δ hotel owners offered to prove that in so many years, with so many people staying in that room, no one ever complained.
-Δ hotel owners offered to prove that in so many years, with so many people staying in that room, no one ever complained.
ISSUE
Is this hearsay?
HOLDING
No, not hearsay, since it wasn’t dependent upon the veracity/competency of other persons.
SG: actually, yes, we’re relying on their credibility, but it’s not in the front of their minds, not thinking “I’m going to leave w/o complaining as a way of asserting that there’s nothing wrong with the heater”
veracity risks are low – people aren’t making a statement by not complaining
veracity risks are low – people aren’t making a statement by not complaining
No comments:
Post a Comment