| Venue: | NY Ct. App. |
| Facts: | Trimarco got cut when he fell through the glass door in an apartment bathroom. It wasn't safety glass, which is what everyone had been using for some time. It was, however, older than the safety glass practice. |
| Posture: | Verdict for plaintiff at trial, reversed and dismissed on appeal. |
| Issue: | Does this meet the standard of reasonableness, or does the fact that regular glass was not used any more preclude a jury making such a finding? |
| Holding: | It was proper for this to go to the jury; need to have a new trial, though, because of some evidentiary exclusions that hurt the defense. |
| Rule: | The question of whether deviation from custom indicates negligence is one of fact, not law. |
| Reasoning: | The jury is better equipped than the judge to say what custom is. Custom is important: it reflects aggregate judgment, it shows what's feasible, and it demonstrates proper safety, at least most of the time. But it's not obvious that just because custom has changed, that landlords are obligated to retrofit all buildings-- only a jury can say whether this landlord was reasonably prudent. |
| Dicta: | |