Case Briefs Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Case Briefs - Essay Example Gilson initiated an action against the Metropolitan Opera as well as the Lincoln Center for negligence and for violation of certain provisions of the City Building Code. Consequently, the trial court set aside the allegation against Lincoln Center, it being an out of possession lessor. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the ruling of the trial court which denied the Metropolitan opera's motion for summary judgment pronouncing that there were questions of fact "including, but not limited to whether defendant maintained the stairs aisles in dangerous manner thereby causing a dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff's accident." Whether or not the Metropolitan Opera House can be held liable for negligence for the injury sustained by Estelle Gilson, by allowing Donald Taitts to return to his seat after the performance had resumed without an escort or usher The Court pointed out that herein plaintiff Gilson did not asset a breach of any common law duty expected to the Opera House. The Court further elucidated that imposing a duty on the Opera House based on its house rules "would in effect, be punishing it for attempting to ensure an exceptional level of courtesy to the audience and the performers" which correspondingly will lead to a new and detailed standard of care for all theatrical venues. Similarly, the Court ruled that despite of the deficiency in the compliance with the City Building Code, the loss of balance and the fall of Mr. Taitts cannot be attributed to it. IT does not appear that it has been related to his inability to see his seat due to the inadequate lighting but it can be recognized as his difficulty in movement. Morgan Vertical Consultants, Inc. v. Arco Wentworth Mgmt. (2007 NY Slip Op 50554(U)) Supreme Court Queens County, New York. 2007 Facts: Plaintiff Morgan Vertical Consultants, Inc is a service provider for elevator maintenance and repair works, commences an action for the recovery of sum money for goods, labor and services among others pursuant to contracts with the sixteen cooperative which the defendant Arco Wentworth Mgmt. is the managing agent. It likewise includes allegation of unjust enrichment. Procedural History and Posture: Defendant Arco moves for a motion to dismiss the causes of action on the ground that there is no privity of contract between herein defendant Arco and Morgan. On the other hand, herein plaintiff alleges that herein defendant is estopped from asserting lack of privity of contract as an argument. Issues: 1. Is there a privity of contract between Morgan Vertical Consultants and Arco Wentworth Mgmt 2. Can Morgan interpose the defense of estoppel against Arco Decision: 1. The Court ruled in the negative. There is no privity of contract between the parties as evidenced by the separate contracts and the bills and invoices by Morgan Vertical Consultants. 2. The Court ruled in the negative. Plaintiff has failed to identify any representations or conduct of the defendant which caused the plaintiff to act to its detriments. Reasoning: The Court provides that obligations arising out of the contract are usually limited to the parties and only the parties to a contract are