Trimarco v. Klein

Citation. Court of Appeals of New York, 1982. 56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E. 2d 502, 451 N.Y.S.2d 52.

Brief Fact Summary.

The Plaintiff(Mr. Trimarco) fell through the glass door that enclosed his tub in his apartment which resulted in severe injury. The defendant(Mr. Klien) is the owner of this apartment building where this harm occurred. The apartment building and the shower installed in 1953.  The plaintiff, Mr. Trimarco sued the defendant(Mr. Klien) for negligence. The plaintiff won at trial, the defendant won on appeal, and the plaintiff appeals that appellate decision.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A party is liable for negligence when their failure to follow an accepted custom is the proximate cause of an injury.

Facts.

The Plaintiff(Mr. Trimarco) fell through the glass door that enclosed his tub in his apartment which resulted in severe injury. The defendant(Mr. Klien) is the owner of this apartment building where this harm occurred. The plaintiff thought and assumed that the glass was tempered by its appearance but it tuned out to be thin ordinary glass. The apartment building and the shower installed in 1953.  The plaintiff, Mr. Trimarco sued the defendant(Mr. Klien) for negligence. At trial, the plaintiff brought an expert witness who testified that since the 1950’s using shatterproof glass became common to use, and by 1976 when the accident occurred the glass door no longer conformed to accepted safety standards. Further, the defendant’s managing agent testified that by 1965  customary landlords who replaced or installed glass enclosures used some materials such as plastic or safety glass. The trial court granted damages to the plaintiff. Then defendant appealed and the appellate court found that there was not a common-law duty to replace the glass unless the defendant had prior notice of the danger. Plaintiff appeals this decision.

Issue.

Whether a party is liable for negligence by not following an accepted custom when the failure to do so causes injury?

Held.

Yes, a party is liable for negligence by not following an accepted custom when the failure to do so causes injury.

Discussion.

Yes, a party is liable for negligence by not following an accepted custom when the negligence causes injury. A custom is a common practice in an area, and when proof of an accepted practice is accompanied by evidence that the defendant conformed to it, due care can have been established, and the opposite is also true. If an accepted custom is not followed and this departure was a proximate cause of the accident, then liability may be established. Based on Mr. Trimarco’s witnesses, prove that an accepted custom was present. The true test of negligence is not whether a custom was present, but that under all the circumstances was the defendant’s behavior reasonable.  It is now left to a jury to decide whether this failure to meet the custom is high enough to render the behavior negligent.