For Your Data Trimarco V. Klein Illustration Brief Summary
February 24, 2019
Edit
Trimarco v. Klein example brief summary
F: At trial, judgment for tenant. air conditioning reversed ruling that landlord had no duty to modify door absent whatever discovery of danger from tenant or from other like accidents inwards the building.
P (Trimarco), tenant in addition to D (Klein), landlord.
Tenant was injured piece he was taking a shower in addition to the drinking glass shower door shattered. Tenant sued landlord for negligently non installing shatterproof drinking glass shower door.
Tenant introduced testify showing that it was mutual utilisation amidst landlords to install such doors inwards the apartments. I: Can landlord hold out held liable for ignoring the customary utilisation amidst the landlords?
R: Landlord tin hold out held liable for ignoring the customary utilisation amidst the landlords.
C: reversed.
F: At trial, judgment for tenant. air conditioning reversed ruling that landlord had no duty to modify door absent whatever discovery of danger from tenant or from other like accidents inwards the building.
P (Trimarco), tenant in addition to D (Klein), landlord.
Tenant was injured piece he was taking a shower in addition to the drinking glass shower door shattered. Tenant sued landlord for negligently non installing shatterproof drinking glass shower door.
Tenant introduced testify showing that it was mutual utilisation amidst landlords to install such doors inwards the apartments. I: Can landlord hold out held liable for ignoring the customary utilisation amidst the landlords?
R: Landlord tin hold out held liable for ignoring the customary utilisation amidst the landlords.
C: reversed.