Timarcov - Summary The Torts Process

Trimarco v. Klein (1982) Plaintiff: Timarco (Tenant) Defendant: Klein (Landlord) STATEMENT OF THE CASE FACTS o The P was a tenant in an apartment owned by ∆ and was severely injured when the glass shower door shattered as he stepped out of the shower in his apartment. o The shower door was made out of ordinary glass. o P sues ∆ for negligence for not providing a door made of shatterproof glass. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 1. Trial Court “Supreme Court”: Judge entered judgment for the P after a jury verdict for the P. D appealed. 2. Appeals Court “Appellate Division”: Reversed and dismissed the complaint, on the grounds that the D had no duty to replace the glass unless D had prior notice of the danger of ordinary glass either from the plaintiff or from a similar accident in the building. P appealed. 3. Highest Court “Court of Appeals of New York”: Reversed, remanded for a new trial because….it is for the jury to decide if the custom and accepted practice of using shatterproof materials had transformed material once considered safe (like glass), into material that could no longer be regarded as such. P’s argument: Plaintiff claims that the defendant was negligent in failing to provide a door made of shatterproof safety glass. The plaintiff introduced evidence of a general practice along landlords to use safety glazing in showers. ISSUE Can the landlord be held liable for negligence for failing to providing to use a customary practice, when such a failure is the proximate cause of one’s injuries? HOLDING ∆ may be found liable for negligence for failing use the accepted practice of replacing glass shower doors with a safer material. COURT’S RATIONALE o 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.” It must bear on what is reasonable conduct under all the circumstances, the quintessential test of negligence. o When proof of an accepted practice is accompanied by evidence that the ∆ conformed to it, this may establish due care and, contrariwise, when proof of 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. o Jury should use what the common practice is as an aid in “formulating the general expectation of society as to how individuals will act in the course of their undertakings.” o Power of proof of custom – it reflects the judgment and experience and conduct of many Its relevancy and reliability come from the direct bearing it has on feasibility because it focuses on the practicality of a precaution in actual operation and the readiness with which it can be used. o Customary practice and usage does not need to be universal for the actor to be charged with knowledge of it or negligent ignorance of it. It is enough that the customary practice is well defined and in the same calling or business as the actor. o However, before the common practice can be a compelling test of negligence, the jury must be satisfied with its reasonableness. o The statute required that safety glazing material be used in all bathroom enclosures, but the requirement did not retroactively apply to installations existing at the effective date of the statute.  ADDITIONAL NOTES *Plaintiff’s case was enough to send to the jury and to sustain the verdict reached. It was also for the jury to decide whether, at the point in time when the accident occurred, the modest cost and ready availability of safety glass and the dynamics of the growing custom to use it for shower enclosures had transformed a reasonably safe practice into an unreasonably safe one. (Could have been negligence per se but was not an applicable safety statute.)