Rule Paragraph 2008 NYS Bar Flashcards Preview

Torts > Rule Paragraph 2008 NYS Bar > Flashcards

Flashcards in Rule Paragraph 2008 NYS Bar Deck (12)
Loading flashcards...

How to write up the issue of a landlord's liability to person's injured on his land that was open and obvious

The issue is whether a landlord is liable to invitees (or class or person described) who are injured in a common area and the injury is the result of a condition that the landlord is not aware of but that could have been seen by the invitee because the danger was open and obvious


New York no longer classifies guests on a property for what purpose

New York no longer classifies guests on property as trespassers, lessees, or invitees but intend a reasonable prudent standard of care is owed to all people on the property


What is the effect of New York's declassification of guests on a landowner's property

It holds that a reasonably prudent standard of care is owed to all people on the property, BUT, whether the plaintiff was a trespasser, lessee, or invitee does impact the standard of care because it affects how foreseeable the injury was and whether reasonable precautions were taken


What are the different standards of care that a landowner owes to person's on the property

The standard varies based on whether or not the landowner knew or did not know a trespasser was on the land, and the landowner does not owe a duty to an unknown trespasser


Tenant's liability for failure to warn of a dangerous condition located in a common area that is open and obvious

A tenant is NOT responsible to maintain and repair common areas, and it is the responsibility of the landlord, unless the tenant and the landlord contract otherwise.


it should be noted that in a motion for a judgment as a matter of law, will ONLY be granted if

(1) a reasonable jury would not find the defendant guilty, or
(2) A motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted where, viewing all evidence in light favoring the non-moving party, a reasonable jury could reach only one conclusion about the outcome of the case.


When writing a rule paragraph about comparative negligence, it should include that

The plaintiff (name) breached his duty of care, and that people have a duty of care to watch where they are walking, but for the person's own conduct, the injury could have been likely avoided


Where a landowner leases part of the land to another, such as a commercial lease, the landowner remains

responsible to keep all common areas of the property in good repair absent an agreement to the contrary. When a lease is silent about the obligation to maintain and repair common areas, the landowner retains responsibility as a matter of law.


New York abolished the common law rules of persons on a landowners property, therefore,

The landowner only owes a duty of reasonable care--but the level of care is affected by the person's "status" entering the land, such as invitee, licensee, trespasser. The owner of land "open to the public" owes a greater duty of care to maintain the premises in a safe condition, more than a private landowner


When you an open and obvious risk to a person entering a landowner's property, the issue is

whether the open and obvious risk negates the landowner's liability in negligence. Where a risk is open and obvious, under New York law the law is comparative negligence will not bar recovery. Moreover, a landowner's duty is reasonable care. Thus, a landowner may still be liable for an open and obvious risk if they were negligent in allowing the risk to persist.


Under the New York Rule of pure comparative negligence

Under the rule, the plaintiff's negligence will reduce his or her recovery by the amount of fault.


In New York under the pure comparative negligence rule a plaintiff a plaintiff who is more than 50% at fault can still recover in full, but what is one limitation of the rule

Is that in a personal injury suit, a defendant who is less than 50% at fault cannot be held responsible for more than 50% of the non-economic damages (e.g. pain and suffering).

Therefore, a plaintiff will not be able to recover more than 50% of noneconomic damages from any defendant who are less than 50% at fault.