Sanders Professor Dennis
District Court of appeal of Florida, fourth district, 2007 U.S.
946 So. 2d 115
Issue: Should a plaintiff be awarded a case for negligence while being hurt in the owner’s night club, knowing that there was a tradition stating that napkins are allowed on the floor dry or damp and anything could happen? Decision: No, Florida state court specified that she knew about the risks going into the c, lub, and also denied her the right to motion her a new trial. Reason: Izquierdo had been to Giorgio’s night club five or six times before hand. She was well aware of the napkin throwing tradition. She filed for negligence because no one failed to look over her after she fell, but the court stated that she could have been negligent herself. Just by carelessly walking around, and not paying attention like there is not any wet napkins on the floor. It could be stated that this was causation in fact, but again Jane knew the risks of going into the club and possibly falling. Citation 1:
248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99
This case is similar in the fact that in the plaintiff was hurt in both cases. The big difference in both is that one of them was possibly being negligent while the other was just a simple example of the situation being unavoidable. In the case of Izquierdo V. Gyroscope, Inc. Jane knew about the traditions of the club and knew about the risks of the napkins being on the floor. However in Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Co. Helen had no idea that the unlabeled box that was near her would contain fireworks, making this the defendants fault. Citation 2:
New York Supreme Court, Appellate division, third department, 2004 8 A.D. 3d 855, 779 N.Y.S. 2d 149
This case is 100 percent similar to the Jane Izquierdo case, because both plaintiffs knew that they were at risk. James Sutton was asked if he willingly walked onto the soccer field for practice, he admitted to doing so making himself...