1) Find a Court case concerning Tort Law, brief it in IRAC format on discussion thread. (To Brief means to inform, tell, etc.. it is common to say, 'case brief' when speaking about a written synopsis of a legal case.) IRAC is discussed in Chapter ONE page 14 and 15. Also Chapter FOUR , pages 12 through 13. Post the case or a link to the case on discussion area. Please read other posts first and do not post on the same case as another student. 2) Prepare a quick training session for your staff that emphasizes the importance of prevention, rather than reacting to, legal liability. 3) Give an example of a situation where this liability might arise. EXAMPLE of a great post! This is the case I chose to brief on. It is Trimarco v. Klein. The first court held for the Plaintiff, but on Appeal, the Court held for the Defendant. Issue: In installing the ordinary glass shower panel, instead of shatterproof glass and permitting it to remain in plaintiff's bathroom as the shower door, did defendant fail in any duty it owed to the plaintiff? Governing Law: Negligence Tort ( negligence Per se based on a Statue, effective July 1, 1973, regulating safety of bath room shower doors ( Sections 389-m and 389-o of the General Business Law ) and also under Multiple Dwelling Law. Section 78 provides (as far as pertinent here): "1. Every multiple dwelling, including its roof or roofs, and every part thereof and the lot upon which it is situate, shall be kept in good repair. The owner shall be responsible for compliance with the provisions of this section." "Custom and usage is a test of negligence which may be considered by a jury. A custom to be relevant, must be reasonably brought home to the [defendant's] locality, and must be so general, or so well known, that the [defendant] may be charged with knowledge of it or with negligent ignorance" Facts: Trimarco (P) was a tenant and D was his landlord. P was getting out of the tub when the glass shower door broke and injured him. P was severely injured. P offered evidence of custom, common usage and practice in making his case for negligence. P did not know and was not made aware that the door used was made out of ordinary glass and not tempered glass, and therefore extraordinary care would be required in operation of such bathroom shower door. Analysis: P argues that although the glass panel installation was acceptable and proper when the apartment building was constructed, there was information available to builders and property owners prior to the date of the accident which highlighted the danger to apartment house tenants of the continued use of such enclosure (Glass Door Injuries & Their Control [US Health Debt booklet], p 1; Hazard Analysis Injuries Involving Architectural Glass [US Prod Safety Comm, Bur of Epidemiology, booklet (Nov., 1974)]); that as a result there devolved upon builders and owners at that time a duty to protect tenants, at least to the extent of replacing previously installed glass enclosures with safety glass. P availed himself of "expert" testimony to establish that there existed a custom and usage in the community among builders and property owners to substitute shatterproof glass or safety glass for glass panels when used in connection with bathroom showers because of the safety factor involved. Indeed, custom and usage is a test of negligence which may be considered by a jury. Such evidence may have relevance in view of all the circumstances of a particular case. (Saglimbeni v West End Brewing Co., 274 App Div 201, affd 298 N.Y. 875). However, "[o]ne is not obliged to use the best methods or to have the best equipment or the safest place, but only such as are reasonably safe and appropriate." (41 NY Jur, Negligence, 21, citing Levine v Blaine Co., 273 N.Y. 386; Garthe v Ruppert, 264 N.Y. 290.) HOWEVER, D argues the mere fact that there existed at the time a better way or a safer method of enclosing showers does not mean that there was a duty upon the defendant landlord to effect such a change (Levine v Blaine Co., supra; Garthe v Ruppert, supra). Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that the failure to follow the "custom and usage" asserted produced a danger which should have been recognized by defendant inasmuch as the record fails to show any accident occurring in the building since its construction which would have made plaintiff's accident foreseeable. (Reilly v Board of Educ., 205 App Div 431.) Furthermore, no request was ever made of defendant landlord by plaintiff that the glass panel be replaced, nor did plaintiff ever put defendant landlord on notice that the glass panel was defective. The statute P leans on to establish D's duty, was not designed to have retroactive effect. It did not require shatterproof glass replacement in existing shower enclosures containing ordinary glass and, therefore, has no relevance to the issues in the case. Conclusion: The court agreed with the D that the statute P leans on to establish D's duty, was not designed to have retroactive effect. It did not require shatterproof glass replacement in existing shower enclosures containing ordinary glass and, therefore, has no relevance to the issues in the case. Plaintiff also sought recourse under the Multiple Dwelling Law. Section 78 provides (as far as pertinent here): "1. Every multiple dwelling, including its roof or roofs, and every part thereof and the lot upon which it is situate, shall be kept in good repair. The owner shall be responsible for compliance with the provisions of this section." The Court was unable to find within that section of the law a duty which required the landlord to effect the substitution of safety glass for the glass originally placed in the sliding bath panels at the time the building was constructed.Notwithstanding section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, a landlord is not an insurer and is not required to make leased premises absolutely safe for any purpose for which they might possibly be used. A landlord is required only to make the premises reasonably safe for the purpose for which they were intended to be used or for a purpose which the landlord should reasonably anticipate. (Collins v Noss, 258 App Div 101, 102). Therefore, the Court subscribed to the opinion that under the facts of this case there was no duty on the part of the landlord to install shatterproof glass in the shower panel. Accordingly, the previous judgment entered May 5, 1980, Supreme Court, Bronx County, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, in the sum of $240,656 should be reversed on the law and the complaint dismissed, without costs. 2) Training sessions: This training session would include hand outs and a powerpoint presentation highlighting the areas discussed. Also, maintenance checklists would be provided for maintenance staff to remind them to check for issues before the arise. Caution signs would list the concept of 'caution' in multiple languages as well as a picture description. Hello and welcome to our safety and prevention annual training. Today we like to emphasize Prevention instead of reaction. Just like prevention of an illness or an injury is much easier to practice then to remedy a broken bone or the Flu, the same applies to our workplace! If you see a posted Caution sign is worn out, bring it to the maintenance dept's attention so it can be replaced. Things like a hard to read Caution sign can lead to a negligence law suit, which could cost the company thousands of dollars and loss of employee jobs and bonuses! Also, if you see anything that could be a hazard to any one, bunched up carpet, loose doorframe, water or food on the floor, immediately grab a Caution Hazard warning sign from the front desk or storage room and then call for the appropriate staff to assist with the situation. If its something like a burned out light, call for maintenance, and if the burned out light leaves the area unsafe to traverse, wait there until the maintenance staff is able to assist to make the area safe again. For our bartenders, remember to be careful of over-serving guest! Being able to realize when a guest has had to much to drink and following up appropriately can be a life-saver for the guest and possible other people who may be injured due to the guest's intoxication.. think drunk driving. Over serving a guest can lead to a lawsuit with substantial compensatory damages. For security staff, be careful how guests are treated in all situations! A simple grab of the wrist can be translated into battery, or holding someone in an particular area can be turned into wrongful imprisonment. Think prevention, before reaction! 3) A tort of negligence is common in the hospitality industry. A lawsuit like could easily occur if the minimum amount of precaution is NOT exercised in regards to safety or use. Examples or prevention could simply be placing legible and understandable signs to indicate a wet floor. Being in this industry opens us up to a variety of guest from different cultures. The guests may or not be familiar with everything in a hotel or resort, or even be able to read certain cautionary warnings signs. Therefore, we must think about every area and possible situation with a broad mind towards prevention