Trimarco v. Klein
56 NY 2d 98, 436 NE 2d 502 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party's failure to adhere to a well-established and reasonable industry custom or usage can be introduced as evidence of negligence, as it demonstrates a departure from the expected standard of care.
Facts:
- Vincent N. Trimarco was a tenant in an apartment building owned by the defendants.
- The bathtub in Trimarco's apartment was enclosed by a door made of ordinary, non-shatterproof glass, which he and his wife assumed was safety glass.
- Beginning in the early 1950s, a custom developed in the building industry to use shatterproof safety glass for bathroom enclosures due to the dangers of ordinary glass.
- By 1965, it was customary for landlords in the area to use safety glass when installing or replacing shower enclosures.
- In July 1976, as Trimarco was sliding the shower door to exit the tub, the glass shattered.
- Trimarco suffered severe lacerations from the broken glass.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent N. Trimarco sued the defendant landlords in New York Supreme Court (the trial court) for negligence.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Trimarco, finding his gross damages to be $400,000 but reducing the award by 40% for his contributory negligence, resulting in a judgment of $240,000.
- The defendants (now appellants) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
- A divided Appellate Division reversed the judgment on the law and dismissed Trimarco's complaint.
- Trimarco (now the appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence of a general industry custom to use shatterproof safety glass for bathtub enclosures create a question of fact for a jury regarding a landlord's negligence for failing to replace an existing enclosure made of ordinary glass?
Opinions:
Majority - Fuchsberg, J.
Yes. Evidence that a defendant departed from a well-established industry custom creates a question of fact for the jury as to whether the defendant breached the standard of reasonable care. When a customary way of performing a task safely has developed, this custom may be proven to show that the defendant's conduct fell below the required standard. The court reasoned that proof of a common practice helps formulate society's general expectation of how individuals will act and guides a jury's judgment. While custom is not a conclusive test of negligence—the jury must still find the custom itself to be reasonable—it is powerful evidence of what is feasible and prudent. Here, Trimarco presented sufficient evidence through expert testimony and admissions from the defendant's agent to establish a prima facie case that the landlord's failure to replace the obsolete glass was negligent. However, the court ordered a new trial because the trial judge improperly admitted into evidence a state statute that mandated safety glass for new installations, as this statute did not apply to existing installations like the plaintiff's and was thus prejudicial to the defendants.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that a defendant's duty of care is not static but evolves with developing industry standards and safety practices. It establishes that landlords and other actors can be found negligent for failing to update or replace fixtures that were once considered safe but have become unreasonably dangerous by modern, customary standards. The case underscores that 'custom and usage' is a key piece of evidence for a jury to consider when determining the reasonableness of a defendant's conduct. Consequently, businesses and property owners are incentivized to stay aware of and conform to prevailing safety customs in their field to avoid liability.
