Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority case brief
summary
662 N.E.2d 287 (1996)
CASE FACTS
The claimant, who was lying on the railroad tracks after an alleged assault, was struck by a train, resulting in his severe, permanent injury. The claimant filed an action against the authority, alleging that the operator was negligent by failing to bring the train to a stop after the point she perceived or should have perceived the claimant's peril prior to striking him. The trial court instructed the jury that the claimant was an invitee, and that as a result the authority was required to use ordinary care to discover and to avoid danger. The trial court denied the authority's motion for a directed verdict, the jury found for the claimant, and the trial court denied the authority's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erroneously and prejudicially instructed the jury that the claimant was an invitee as a matter of law, and finding that in fact the claimant was a trespasser to whom the authority owed substantially less of a duty.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
662 N.E.2d 287 (1996)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant transit authority (authority)
contested an order of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County
(Ohio), which entered a verdict awarding appellee claimant damages
arising from the authority's operation of a rapid transit train which
struck the claimant causing him serious and permanent injuries. After
the trial court overruled the authority's motion for a directed
verdict, the jury considered the allegation of negligent operation.CASE FACTS
The claimant, who was lying on the railroad tracks after an alleged assault, was struck by a train, resulting in his severe, permanent injury. The claimant filed an action against the authority, alleging that the operator was negligent by failing to bring the train to a stop after the point she perceived or should have perceived the claimant's peril prior to striking him. The trial court instructed the jury that the claimant was an invitee, and that as a result the authority was required to use ordinary care to discover and to avoid danger. The trial court denied the authority's motion for a directed verdict, the jury found for the claimant, and the trial court denied the authority's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the claimant's legal status and the authority's corresponding duty, and that the erroneous instruction was prejudicial.
- Thus, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that upon entering the track area, the claimant became a trespasser as a matter of law and the authority was only liable for injuries resulting from willful or wanton conduct.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erroneously and prejudicially instructed the jury that the claimant was an invitee as a matter of law, and finding that in fact the claimant was a trespasser to whom the authority owed substantially less of a duty.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment