Ebanks v. New York City Transit Authority Essay

Published: 2020-01-10 21:11:39
299 words
2 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: New York City

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

GET MY ESSAY
Facts:

* Julius Ebankss left foot got caught in a 2-inch gap between the escalator step and the side wall of the escalator, which was owned and operated by the New York City Transit Authority. * He was thrown violently to the ground after reaching the top. His hip was fractured along with other serious injuries. * The standard gap of the citys building code was 3/8 inches * Ebanks (plaintiff) sued the Transit Authority (defendant) to recover damages for his injuries.

Issues:

* Who wins?
* Were plaintiffs injuries the result of Transit Authoritys negligent operation and maintenance of the escalator?
Decisions of the court:
* Julius Ebanks wins and he can recover damages from the Transit Authority under negligence per se doctrine.
Reasoning:
Under the doctrine of negligence per se, a defendant is liable if fails to repair and maintain a damage that causes injuries to the plaintiff. The injured party does not have to prove the defendant owed the duty because the statute establishes it. Because the building code established the requirement for the space between an escalator step and wall cannot exceed 3/8 inches while the gap in this case was 2 inches, Transit Authority did violate the building code. Since the building code was made to prevent this sort of injury and Ebanks was meant to be protected under the building code, the Court held in favor of Ebanks under negligence per se doctrine.

Managerial Implications:
Businesses have to take a very careful look at their responsibility established by statutes or ordinances and take action to fulfill their responsibility to avoid causing injuries and therefore, avoid a lawsuit.

Result of Opposite Ruling:
Businesses would need not to always follow a statue or ordinance. A safety standard wouldnt always be guaranteed and businesses could build their own standard of safety.

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!

GET UNIQUE ESSAY

We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read