In a case against a well known retail store located in Manhattan, the defense moved for summary judgment claiming the accident was not foreseeable. In my opposition papers I pointed to the seminal case, Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, were Justice Benjamin Cardozo it it be known that when more than one inference is possible from the facts, foreseeability remains a question of fact for the jury to decide. Only when there is one possible inference, is it appropriate for the court to decide foreseeability as a matter of law. While conferencing the motion with the court attorney, the court attorney mentioned that her and the judge could not agree on the case after watching the surveillance video. My point exactly. In a small sample size of the courtroom we were in, 2 reasonably prudent people saw differing inferences. On oral argument I reiterated and reaffirmed foreseeability is a matter of fact for the jury, and the judge agreed. Summary judgment denied, and the case will proceed to trial.
A Civil Boutique
LoBrutto Law, P.C. 