Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

Singh v. United Cerebral Palsy of N.Y.C., Inc.

    Brief Fact Summary.

    Sianna Singh filed suit against United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, Inc. on charges of Res IpsaLoquitor after being injured by automatic swinging doors.

    Synopsis of Rule of Law.

    A plaintiff sufficiently makes a claim for res ipsaloquitor when the plaintiff can prove that the incident would not have ordinarily occurred without negligence, the incident was under the sole discretion of the defendant, and the plaintiff did not voluntarily participate in the action.

    Facts.

    Sianna Singh (Singh) filed suit against United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, Inc. (UCP) after being injured by automatic swinging doors. Singh asserted the doctrine of res ipsaloquitor, arguing that the motion detectors over the doors were defective and accidents of that type would not ordinarily occur absent negligence. UCP moved for summary judgments and was denied by the lower courts. UCP appealed.

    Issue.

    Whether a plaintiff sufficiently makes a claim for res ipsaloquitor when the plaintiff can prove that the incident would not have ordinarily occurred without negligence, the incident was under the sole discretion of the defendant, and the plaintiff did not voluntary participate in the action?

    Held.

    Yes. The lower court’s judgment denying UCP’s motion to dismiss is affirmed.

    Points of Law - for Law School Success

    The failure to make a diligent inspection constitutes negligence only if such an inspection would have disclosed the defect.

    View Full Point of Law
    Discussion.

    Although UCP argues that the motion detectors were not under their exclusive control, more than one defendant can have exclusive control over the thing causing injury. UCP is not relieved of liability because they share control with Reliable, the company that repairs the motion detectors. Similarly, the use of the doors by the public does not relieve UCP of exclusive control because the public does not have access to repair or remove the sensors.


    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following