GLADON V. GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 662 N.E.2d 287 (1996) CASE BRIEF

GLADON V. GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY

662 N.E.2d 287 (1996)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Transit Authority (D), contested an order which entered a verdict awarding Gladon (P) damages arising from D's operation of a rapid transit train which struck P causing him serious and permanent injuries. After the trial court overrule D's motion for a directed verdict, the jury considered the allegation of negligent operation.

FACTS: D appealed from a jury verdict awarding P $2,736,915.35 in damages arising from D's operation of a rapid transit train. P purchased a passenger ticket and boarded a D rapid transit train. P had been at a baseball game and had consumed about five 16-ounce beers. P left his friends at the stadium in search of a restroom, and ended up traveling alone on D's train. There were no witnesses to the incident and the jury only heard P's account of events. P mistakenly exited the train at the West 65th Street Station and, once on the platform, was chased and attacked by two unknown males. P testified that he remembered being 'rolled up in a ball' on the tracks but he could not recall if he had jumped onto the tracks or had been pushed onto the tracks. He did recall being kicked in the head. A train approached the West 65th Street Station. Mary Bell, the train's operator, had the train in braking mode when she observed first a tennis shoe and then Gladon's leg on the tracks. She pulled the emergency brake but the train struck P causing him serious and permanent injuries. P sued D and the operator alleging negligence in the security and in the operation of the train. The trial court granted D summary judgment as to the negligent security claim and the case proceeded to trial on the negligent operation claim. The court instructed the jury that P was an invitee and that the driver of a rapid transit car with the right of way must use ordinary care. The jury returned a verdict for P and overruled D's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court of appeals affirmed.

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.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner