Trimarco v. Klein
Court of Appeals of New York
436 N.E.2d 502, 56 N.Y.2d 98, 451 N.Y.S.2d 52 (1982)
- Written by Michael Beverly, JD
Facts
Vincent N. Trimarco (plaintiff) was injured when a glass bathtub shower door enclosure shattered in his apartment while he was sliding the door open to exit the tub. The door was made out of ordinary glass, however, Trimarco assumed it was made out of tempered, shatterproof safety glass. Trimarco sued Klein (defendant), the owner of the building for negligence. At trial, Trimarco presented expert testimony that shatterproof glass doors have been in common use since the early 1950s and that the door at issue did not conform to accepted safety standards. Additionally, at Klein’s managing agent testified that since 1965 it was customary to replace glass shower doors with material such as plastic or safety glass. Trimarco won a verdict in his favor. Klein appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the decision of the trial court based on the law. The Appellate Division found that even assuming a custom and practice to use shatterproof glass, unless Klein had prior notice of the dangerousness of ordinary glass either from Trimarco or from prior accidents, Klein had no duty to replace the glass. Accordingly, the Appellate Division dismissed the complaint. Trimarco appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fuchsberg,J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
