Showing posts with label GLADON V. GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GLADON V. GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Show all posts

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