GEORGE FOLTIS, INC. V. CITY OF NEW YORK
38 N.E.2d 455 (1941)
NATURE OF THE CASE: City (D) appealed a judgment which affirmed the directed verdict
entered by the trial court in favor of Foltis (P) in its action for negligence against D,
based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
FACTS: P owned a restaurant that was damaged by water from a broken water main installed
in the street by D and maintained by D. P produced evidence intended to show that the city
failed to shut off the water from the broken water main within a reasonable time after it
received notice of the break. P produced no evidence to show the cause of the break and no
evidence that the break was due to negligence of D in the construction or maintenance of the
water main unless from the nature of the break in a main constructed and maintained by D,
negligence may be inferred or presumed by application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur. D
moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that P had failed to prove a prima facie case.
The trial court reserved judgment on that issue. D produced evidence sufficient, if
credited, to show that it did not fail in any duty to exercise reasonable diligence in
shutting off the water after it received notice of the break. D produced no evidence to show
the cause of the break. It did attempt to prove that whatever may have been the cause of the
break, no negligence by D, either in the construction or maintenance of the pipe, caused or
contributed to the injury. D made a motion to dismiss the complaint and also for the
direction of a verdict. The trial judge reserved decision upon that motion. The jury found
that D had not failed to use reasonable care in the construction or maintenance of the water
main, nor had it failed to use reasonable diligence in shutting off the water. The jury
found that P had sustained damages of $2,500. The trial judge, disregarding the findings of
the jury in favor of D, held that the rule of res ipsa loquitur applied and, as matter of
law, dictated an inference or presumption of negligence. He, therefore, granted the motion
of P upon which decision had been reserved, for the direction of a verdict for the amount of
damages suffered by P as found by the jury. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment