Ebanks v. New York City Transit Authority

Categories: Bank

Facts:

* Julius Ebanks’s left foot got caught in a 2-inch gap between the escalator step 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 ground after reaching the top. His hip was fractured along with other serious injuries. * The standard gap of the city’s building code was 3/8 inches * Ebanks (plaintiff) sued the Transit Authority (defendant) to recover damages for his injuries.

Issues:

* Who wins?
* Were plaintiff’s injuries the result of Transit Authority’s negligent operation and maintenance of the escalator?
Decisions of the court:
* Julius Ebanks wins and he can recover damages from the Transit Authority under negligence per se doctrine.


Reasoning:
Under the doctrine of negligence per se, a defendant is liable if fails to repair and maintain a damage that causes injuries to the plaintiff. The injured party does not have to prove the defendant owed the duty because the statute establishes it.

Get quality help now
Doctor Jennifer
Verified writer

Proficient in: Bank

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

Because the building code established the requirement for the space between an escalator step and wall cannot exceed 3/8 inches while the gap in this case was 2 inches, Transit Authority did violate the building code. Since the building code was made to prevent this sort of injury and Ebanks was meant to be protected under the building code, the Court held in favor of Ebanks under negligence per se doctrine.

Managerial Implications:
Businesses have to take a very careful look at their responsibility established by statutes or ordinances and take action to fulfill their responsibility to avoid causing injuries and therefore, avoid a lawsuit.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper
Topic
Number of pages
Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

You won’t be charged yet!

Result of Opposite Ruling:
Businesses would need not to always follow a statue or ordinance. A safety standard wouldn’t always be guaranteed and businesses could build their own standard of safety.

Cite this page

Ebanks v. New York City Transit Authority. (2016, Nov 21). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/ebanks-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-essay

Ebanks v. New York City Transit Authority

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

get help with your assignment