Medcalf v. Washington Heights Condominium Ass’n, Inc. case brief
summary
747 A.2d 532 (2000)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff became the victim of a violent assault as she waited in the lobby of defendants' apartment building, while her hosts struggled to admit her by using an electronic buzzer that did not work. The jury indicated in interrogatories that the verdict for plaintiff was based entirely on a finding that defendants were negligent in failing to maintain the building telephone security intercom communication system to protect plaintiff and others.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed and remanded because as a matter of law a jury could not reasonably have found that failure to fix an intercom was the proximate cause of an assault on plaintiff and resultant injury, so there could be no finding of negligence.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
747 A.2d 532 (2000)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants condominium association and
management company appealed a judgment for plaintiff, by the Superior
Court in the Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk (Connecticut), on
grounds that the court should have entered judgment for defendant on
plaintiff's negligence claim as a matter of law.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff became the victim of a violent assault as she waited in the lobby of defendants' apartment building, while her hosts struggled to admit her by using an electronic buzzer that did not work. The jury indicated in interrogatories that the verdict for plaintiff was based entirely on a finding that defendants were negligent in failing to maintain the building telephone security intercom communication system to protect plaintiff and others.
DISCUSSION
- The court held that the trial court should have entered judgment for defendants as a matter of law, because plaintiff failed to establish an essential element of negligence, proximate cause.
- The intervening criminal act of the assailant was not within the scope of risk created by defendants' lack of maintenance, because the primary reason buildings have buzzer systems is to protect residents, not guests.
The court reversed and remanded because as a matter of law a jury could not reasonably have found that failure to fix an intercom was the proximate cause of an assault on plaintiff and resultant injury, so there could be no finding of negligence.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment