Anjou v Boston Elevated Ry. Co. Relevant Facts: Pl arrived on one of Df elevated cars at a terminal. She asked an employee the direction to another car. He walked along a narrow platform, and she followed a few feet behind. As she headed toward the stairway indicated by him she slipped on a banana peel. Witnesses described the peel as having the appearance that it had been there a while. The employee’s duty was to observe and remove whatever was upon the platform that would interfere with the safety of travelers. Legal Issue(s): Whether the df exercised reasonable care in removing obstacles that would interfer with the safety of travelers? Court’s Holding: No Procedure: Directed Verdict for Df, Reversed. Law or Rule(s): Exercise of ordinary care and prudence a person would observe under similar circumstance. Court Rationale: The inference drawn that the peel had been upon the platform for a considerable amount of time could be drawn and the jury should have been allowed to determine such. The obligation rests upon the df to keep its station reasonably safe for its passengers. Plaintiff’s Argument: Df failed to exercise reasonable care in having the peel removed prior to the injury. Defendant’s Argument: Df was unaware of when the peel had materialized and therefor exercised reasonable care.
Joye v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Relevant Facts: Pl slipped on a banana in Df supermarket. The banana had sand and dirt upon it afterward, as did the floor around the area. The banana was sticky around the edges. Legal Issue(s): Whether the df was given sufficient notice of a dangerous condition resulting in the injury to PL? Court’s Holding: No Procedure: Diversity suit Jury found for Pl, $10,000. Df appealed. Reversed
Law or Rule(s): Exercise of ordinary care and prudence a person would observe under similar circumstance. Court Rationale: There was no evidence that the df was given constructive notice of a dangerous situation which he would have to remedy. There was no evidence that the df put the banana on the floor, or how long it had remained there. There was evidence that the floor had not been swept for at least 35 minutes. No one saw the banana until after Joye fell on it. It could not be determined whether the banana had been there 3o seconds or 3 days. Plaintiff’s Argument: The df failed to exercise reasonable care in keeping the floor clear of obstructions which would likely cause injury. Defendant’s Argument: The df had no knowledge of the condition, nor how long the condition existed, nor how the condition arose. Jasko v F.W. Woolworth Co Relevant Facts: Pl was injured when she slipped on a piece of pizza that was on the floor near the counter in the Df store. The store sold pizza by the slice on wax paper and hoagie sandwiches. The customers regularly stood and ate. Legal Issue(s): Whether notice of a dangerous condition causing the injury is necessary to support a negligence action in this case? Court’s Holding: No Procedure: Ct of App judgment is reversed for new trial. Law or Rule(s): Exercise of ordinary care and prudence a person would observe under similar circumstance. Notice requirement is for dangers that are out of the ordinary. Court Rationale: The dangerous condition was created by the store’s method of sale. The steps taken to constantly clean the store show the owner recognized the danger. Selling pizza on waxed paper, to customers standing, creates a reasonable probability that food will drop. Notice is not required under these situations. Where the store’s operation creates the danger continuously they are easily foreseeable, and notice is not required. Plaintiff’s Argument: The df was aware of the dangerous conditions that they created and failedto exercise ordinary reasonable care. Defendant’s Argument: Df constantly cleaned around the counter, and was unaware how the pizza rested onto the floor.
Byrne v Boadle
Relevant Facts: The Pl was walking down a public street, past the Df shop, when a barrel of flour fell upon him from a window above the shop. The Df was a dealer in flour. Legal Issue(s): Without affirmative proof of negligence, can a Df automatically be liable for prima facie negligence? Court’s Holding: yes Procedure: Nonsuited the Pl, lack of evidence. Leave of Ct of Exchequer. Reversed. Nisi -concluded unless PL shows cause on appeal. Law or Rule(s): Exercise of ordinary care and prudence a person would observe under similar circumstance. Res Ipsa Loquitor - The thing speaks for itself. Proof that the instrument causing the injury was under the exclusive control of the df and the injury does not ordinarily happen unless negligent. Court Rationale: There is no evidence that anyone other than a servant or dealer had control over the barrel. The presumption is that a barrel could not roll out of the warehouse without some negligence. The barrel of flour was in the custody of the dealer of flour, who is responsible for his servants, and the PL is not bound to show that the barrel could not fall without negligence. Plaintiff’s Argument: PL had no duty to exercise anymore care than another walking down the street. Df had control over the barrel of flour. Defendant’s Argument: Df had no knowledge that the barrel fell as a result of his servants or his own volition.