* Julius Ebanks’s left foot got caught in a 2-inch spread between the escalator measure 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 land after making the top. His hip was fractured along with other serious hurts. * The standard spread of the city’s edifice codification was 3/8 inches * Ebanks ( complainant ) sued the Transit Authority ( suspect ) to retrieve amendss for his hurts.
* Who wins?
* Were plaintiff’s injuries the consequence of Transit Authority’s negligent operation and care of the escalator?
Decisions of the tribunal:
* Julius Ebanks wins and he can retrieve amendss from the Transit Authority under carelessness per se philosophy.
Under the philosophy of carelessness per Se. a suspect is apt if fails to mend and keep a harm that causes hurts to the complainant. The injured party does non hold to turn out the suspect owed the responsibility because the legislative act establishes it. Because the edifice codification established the demand for the infinite between an escalator measure and wall can non transcend 3/8 inches while the spread in this instance was 2 inches. Transit Authority did go against the edifice codification. Since the edifice codification was made to forestall this kind of hurt and Ebanks was meant to be protected under the edifice codification. the Court held in favour of Ebanks under carelessness per se philosophy.
Businesss have to take a really careful expression at their duty established by legislative acts or regulations and take action to carry through their duty to avoid doing hurts and hence. avoid a case.
Consequence of Opposite Opinion:
Businesss would necessitate non to ever follow a statue or regulation. A safety criterion wouldn’t ever be guaranteed and concerns could construct their ain criterion of safety.