Rowland v. Christian case brief
Facts: Plaintiff was a social guest in defendant’s apartment when he went to use the bathroom he found a cracked handle of the water faucet. It broke and caused serious injuries. Defendant knew that it was broken and complained to the manager of the building but didn’t tell the plaintiff.
Decision: Summary judgment for defendant reversed, the plaintiff can go through with the trial.
Reasoning: Thought that the common law determination of plaintiff’s status was wrong. Need to weigh factors of the closeness of the connection between injury and defendant’s conduct, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, and availability of any insurance. Therefore this should be used to determine whether there is any fault. A lot of courts decided that they will approach it on negligence claims. Focusing on what the status of the plaintiff does not make for a good way to determine duty because people rarely change their conduct based on such matters. A person on the land should have the right to know of the dangerous condition and to take special precautions.
Holding: Where the occupier of land is aware of a concealed condition which has an unreasonable risk of harm to those coming in contact with it and is aware that a licensee is about to come in contact with it, the trier of fact can reasonably conclude whether or not a failure to warn or repair constitutes negligence.
Visit: http://www.fbdetox.com to rid yourself of that social media addition.
Check out our store on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com