Facts
Fisher was at a luncheon at the Brass Ring Club as part of the Carrousel Motor Hotel. When he was in line to get food, the manager took the plate and announced loudly that he could not be served there, offensively. While Fisher was not physically injured, he testified that he was embarrassed and hurt emotionally by the actions of the manager.
Procedural History
The jury of the trial court ruled in favor of Fisher. The trial court set aside the verdict and found in favor of Carrousel Motor Hotel. The court of Civil Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court that no assault took place. Fisher appealed, escalating to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Was there a battery committed? Is the corporate business responsible for the employee?
Holding …show more content…
Physical conduct is not necessary to be considered battery, as long as an object or clothing in contact with the body is affected. In this case, the manager grabbed the plate out of Fisher’s hands which can be viewed as an offensive invasion of person. Carrousel
Motor hotel is also liable because they allowed the manager to have such a high position in the business.
Trimarco v. Klein (Case Brief 2)
Facts
Trimarco fell through the glass door of the bathtub in his apartment. Trimarco suffered severe injuries.
After the accident, the glass was found to be ordinary glass, not safety glass as is custom in bathroom fixtures. An expert testimony entered the following information about common use and safety standards.
Shatterproof materials have been used since the 1950s. It has also been customary to replace glass with safety class since 1965 – specifically under Klein – the landlords – management. So, as this took place in
1976, the bathroom did not meet safety standards.
Procedural History
The trial court ruled in favor of Trimarco.
The appeal concluded that Trimarco was not responsible for replacing the glass without prior knowledge of the danger.
Trimarco appealed.
Fisher was at a luncheon at the Brass Ring Club as part of the Carrousel Motor Hotel. When he was in line to get food, the manager took the plate and announced loudly that he could not be served there, offensively. While Fisher was not physically injured, he testified that he was embarrassed and hurt emotionally by the actions of the manager.
Procedural History
The jury of the trial court ruled in favor of Fisher. The trial court set aside the verdict and found in favor of Carrousel Motor Hotel. The court of Civil Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court that no assault took place. Fisher appealed, escalating to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Was there a battery committed? Is the corporate business responsible for the employee?
Holding …show more content…
Physical conduct is not necessary to be considered battery, as long as an object or clothing in contact with the body is affected. In this case, the manager grabbed the plate out of Fisher’s hands which can be viewed as an offensive invasion of person. Carrousel
Motor hotel is also liable because they allowed the manager to have such a high position in the business.
Trimarco v. Klein (Case Brief 2)
Facts
Trimarco fell through the glass door of the bathtub in his apartment. Trimarco suffered severe injuries.
After the accident, the glass was found to be ordinary glass, not safety glass as is custom in bathroom fixtures. An expert testimony entered the following information about common use and safety standards.
Shatterproof materials have been used since the 1950s. It has also been customary to replace glass with safety class since 1965 – specifically under Klein – the landlords – management. So, as this took place in
1976, the bathroom did not meet safety standards.
Procedural History
The trial court ruled in favor of Trimarco.
The appeal concluded that Trimarco was not responsible for replacing the glass without prior knowledge of the danger.
Trimarco appealed.