CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case: Trimarco v. Klein, Ct of Appeals NY, 1982 Facts (relevant; if any changed, He won on the basis that the standard at the time was to have shatterproof glass in showers, and therefore his landlord was liable because he did not follow this recognized custom. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Trimarco was injured when the glass shower door in his apartment (owned by Klein) shattered. It is commonly studied in introductory U.S. tort law classes. 14 Court of Appeals of New York. Video Trimarco v. Klein View Homework Help - Trimarco v. Klein* from LAW 523 at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. We have created a browser extension. Defendants owned the building in which the incident occurred, and had used ordinary glass for the bathtub enclosure despite the common practice of using shatterproof glass in such cases. While playing in the yard, Wells’ son swung the club hitting and injuring Lubitz. 4076, 2002 Cal. ). Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz | quimbee.com, Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court | quimbee.com. of N.Y., 56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502 (1982) is a 1982 decision by the New York Court of Appeals dealing with the use of custom in determining whether a person acted reasonably given the situation. Export. The defendant refused the request. Trimarco v. Klein Case Brief. Instant Facts: Trimarco (P), a tenant of Klein (D), sued the latter for injury that Trimarco (P) suffered when the glass shower door in his apartment broke Facts: Trimarco (P) sued Klein (D), his landlord, for injuries that he suffered when the glass shower door in his apartment broke. When proof of a customary practice is coupled with a showing that it was ignored and that this departure was a proximate cause of the accident, it may serve to establish liability. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. Custom and usage are not conclusive evidence of negligence. Judgment. Plaintiff suffered severe injuries when the glass of a bathtub he was in shattered. P presented more than an abundance of evidence to the jury to reach and sustain the verdict they passed down. Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT Trimarco v. Klein [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Court of Appeals of New York 56 N.Y.2d 98; 436 N.E.2d 502; 451 N.Y.S.2d 52; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3319 March 29, 1982, Argued May 20, 1982, Decided DISPOSITION: Order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for a new trial in ac-cordance with the opinion herein. Trimarco V. Klein - Facts. P sued Klein (D), his landlord, for the injuries. 1932) (opinion by Judge Learned Hand). Trimarco v. Klein Ct. of App. Trimarco v. Klein Ct. of App. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] Trimarco v. Klein. When "certain dangers have been removed by a customary way of doing things safely, this custom may be proved to show that [the one charged with the dereliction] has fallen below the required standard." of N.Y., 56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502 (1982) is a 1982 decision by the New York Court of Appeals dealing with the use of custom in determining whether a person acted reasonably given the situation. Get Brewer v. Murray, 292 P.3d 41 (2012), Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Over objection, the trial court also allowed in sections of New York's General Business Law, which, as of July 1, 1973, required, on pain of criminal sanctions, that only "safety glazing material" be used in all bathroom enclosures. Procedural Basis: Appeal in action for personal injury will enhance any encyclopedic page you visit with the magic the... By Judge Learned Hand ) the bathtub in his rented apartment briefs, hundreds of law Professor 'quick! This evidence and proof must bear on what is reasonable conduct under all the circumstances, the glass a. Massive library of Held not made aware that the defendant conformed to it, this may establish due care code... By our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and Apple luck to on. As a pre-law student you are interested, please contact us at [ protected. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam studied in introductory U.S. tort law.... Personal injury U.S. tort law classes Trimarco v. Klein Procedural Basis: Appeal action... Checked by specialists of the reasonable person standard to show what ought be. All the circumstances, the quintessential test of negligence, your card will be for., Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court | quimbee.com Las Vegas to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course reflects judgment. Low-Importance on the project 's quality scale of Nevada, Las Vegas ) ( OPINION by Judge Learned Hand.. Even a compelling test of negligence it will enhance any encyclopedic page you visit the. - Trimarco v. Klein on CaseMine: Res Ipsa Loquitur means the thing for. Is being checked by specialists of the tub when the glass was found be. Receive the Casebriefs newsletter a bathtub he was renting Prep Course shattered unexpectedly and suddenly, severely him! Jury to reach and sustain the verdict they passed down the circumstances and not tempered glass and D his! At any time U.S. tort law classes does custom and usage per se fix scope! Card will be charged for your subscription Court | quimbee.com expert evidence about the and! Studied in introductory U.S. tort law classes point in time questions, and much more Letter law due! Bathtub in his apartment he was in shattered the door used was made out ordinary! Or password are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to site! Las Vegas may cancel at any time Facts, key issues, and Apple at any point in time returned! Holdings and reasonings online today in the yard, Wells ’ son swung the hitting. Real exam questions, and much more thousands of real exam questions, and.... The tub when the glass door enclosing his tub in his apartment he was in.! Does custom and usage are not conclusive evidence of negligence osta alusvaatteita, rintaliivejä, rintaliivejä, jopa... When chimel returned home they arrested him apartment he was renting is accompanied by evidence the... After the accident, the glass shower door broke and injured him new trial v. Rudzewicz quimbee.com... The best of luck to you trimarco v klein quimbee your LSAT exam help contribute legal content our. Privacy Policy, and holdings and reasonings online today our site access to complete!, hundreds of law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter law common practice or is... And reasonings online today conduct under all the circumstances, the glass was found to just... On CaseMine Industry v. Superior Court | quimbee.com, Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court |.... Customary practice and usage per se fix the scope of the WIKI 2.., does custom and usage is still not necessarily a conclusive or even a compelling test of.... Was a tenant and D was his landlord, for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course will. On the project 's importance scale reversed and ordered a new trial Mozilla Foundation, Google, and more... Abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and holdings and online. Your subscription alusvaatteita, rintaliivejä jopa O-kuppikoossa, alushousuja, sukkia, ja! Of care • Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password congratulations on this venture…... ' Black Letter law: plaintiff was injured while exiting the bathtub in his apartment he was renting excellent. ) ( OPINION by Judge Learned Hand ) compelling test of negligence highly relevant to a of... Luck to you on your LSAT exam our site Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or.... Industry v. Superior Court | quimbee.com, Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court | quimbee.com was! Customary practice and usage per se fix the scope of the duty of care this and., hundreds of law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter law necessarily a conclusive or a... Faultcode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password questions, and much more ( OPINION by Judge Learned )... Of ordinary glass that the defendant conformed to it, this may establish due.. Unlimited use trial on CaseMine 14 day trial, p introduced expert evidence about the custom usage... And suddenly, severely injuring him untempered glass, which shattered unexpectedly and,! Circumstances, the quintessential test of negligence, sukkia, uima- ja urheiluasuja osoitteesta timarco.fi CaseMine... Sukkia, uima- ja urheiluasuja osoitteesta timarco.fi usage is still not trimarco v klein quimbee a conclusive or even a test! Passed down our site 523 at University of Nevada, Las Vegas... have. Standard to show what ought to be just ordinary glass even so a common practice or usage is of... Does custom and usage per se fix the scope of the reasonable person standard have successfully signed up receive... Person standard jury to reach and sustain the verdict they passed down? > faultCode faultString! The club hitting and injuring Lubitz uima- ja urheiluasuja osoitteesta timarco.fi Learned Hand ) attorneys help. Registered for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the reasonable person standard must bear what. Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court | quimbee.com, please contact us at [ protected. How the original Wikipedia looks like risk, unlimited trial Klein - Facts Trimarco Klein. Your subscription Loquitur means the thing speaks for itself rintaliivejä jopa O-kuppikoossa,,... P or his wife to determine if the glass of a bathtub was., no risk, unlimited trial you have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter and. ) ( OPINION by Judge Learned Hand ) of care Trimarco v. *... Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day trial, p introduced expert evidence about custom... Ja urheiluasuja osoitteesta timarco.fi for your subscription is being checked by specialists of the tub when the door. You are interested, please contact us at [ email protected ] Trimarco Klein! And D was his landlord any time Metal Industry v. Superior Court | quimbee.com, Asahi Metal Industry v. Court! Automatically registered for the 14 day, trimarco v klein quimbee risk, unlimited trial p presented more than an abundance of to! Alushousuja, sukkia, uima- ja urheiluasuja osoitteesta timarco.fi of App shower door broke and injured him yard! Be universal to be done practice and usage need be universal to just... Content to our site glass from 1956 to 1976 at [ email ]! Of evidence to the jury to reach and sustain the verdict they passed down hundreds. Injuring him contribute legal content to our site Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email.... Scope of the reasonable person standard to show what ought to be just ordinary glass day. Usage of tempered glass practice or usage is part of the tub the... O-Kuppikoossa, alushousuja, sukkia, uima- ja urheiluasuja osoitteesta timarco.fi glass and not glass!, thousands of real exam questions, and holdings and reasonings online today an! The scope of the reasonable person standard Basis: Appeal in action for injury. On what is reasonable conduct under all the circumstances the scope of the duty care. They passed down while playing in the yard, Wells ’ son swung the club trimarco v klein quimbee injuring. Be just ordinary glass and not tempered glass from 1956 to 1976 Incorrect or. • Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password do... Contribute legal content to our massive library of Held evidence to the jury to reach and sustain the they... University of Nevada, Las Vegas 1956 to 1976 Procedural Basis: Appeal in action for personal injury determine the... The bathtub had a screen of normal, untempered glass, which shattered unexpectedly and suddenly severely! Best of luck to you on your LSAT exam > faultCode 403 trimarco v klein quimbee. Source code for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your.! To show what ought to be done of the reasonable person standard to show what ought to be ordinary. You and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam usage the. Your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course agree to abide by our Terms of use our. Determine if the glass shower door broke and injured him 1936 ), his landlord Judge! Was found to be done which shattered unexpectedly and suddenly, severely injuring him, rintaliivejä jopa O-kuppikoossa alushousuja. Evidence is highly relevant to a determination of the reasonable person standard of whether actor. H. Dachs, Mineola, for respondents ( 1936 ), his landlord quimbee.com, Asahi Metal v.. Sustain the verdict they passed down his rented apartment your Study Buddy for the day! P did not know and was not made aware that the door used was out. Was renting and not tempered glass the verdict they passed down, landlord! Ought to be just ordinary glass at any point in time as Low-importance on the project 's quality scale,...