Sindle v. NY city transit case brief summary
F: P boarded a school bus owned by the D. Since it was the last day of school, students broke dome lights, windows, and
other properties of bus with a boisterous and exuberant mood. Then, the driver went to the rear of the bus and inspected
the damage and advised them that he was taking them to the police station, bypassing several stops.
Cause of action: FI. The TC denied D”s motion to amend their answers to plead the defense of justification. Also excluded all evidence bearing on the justification issue.
I: whether a school bus driver has the duty to take reasonable measure for the safety and protection of passengers and property, and if he does, his bypassing several stops and going to the police station, can be a defense of justification as
to the P’s alleged FI
R: a school bus driver has the duty to take reasonable measure for the safety and protection of passengers and property, and his bypassing several stops and going to the police station, can be a defense of justification as to the P’s alleged FI, or detention which is reasonable under the circumstances, imposed for the purpose of preventing another from inflicting personal injuries or property damages, is not unlawful.
C: reversed and the case remitted for a new trial.
Cause of action: FI. The TC denied D”s motion to amend their answers to plead the defense of justification. Also excluded all evidence bearing on the justification issue.
I: whether a school bus driver has the duty to take reasonable measure for the safety and protection of passengers and property, and if he does, his bypassing several stops and going to the police station, can be a defense of justification as
to the P’s alleged FI
R: a school bus driver has the duty to take reasonable measure for the safety and protection of passengers and property, and his bypassing several stops and going to the police station, can be a defense of justification as to the P’s alleged FI, or detention which is reasonable under the circumstances, imposed for the purpose of preventing another from inflicting personal injuries or property damages, is not unlawful.
C: reversed and the case remitted for a new trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment