The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was hurt on D's bus when the wheelchair accessible seat collapsed under him. P could not prove that D actually knew of the defect but nonetheless relied on a theory of constructive notice evidenced by a computer printout of a repair record that the seat had been fixed or adjusted and that a proper inspection of those repairs would have revealed the defect causing the collapse 11 days later. The court charged the jury with the then accepted standard of care for a common carrier; highest care owed by a common carrier. P got the verdict under the constructive notice theory, and the Appellate Division affirmed without addressing the standard of care. This appeal resulted.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.