Case Study 49.1
adrner
case_49.1_business_law.docxCASE 49.1 Negligence: New Haverford Partnership v. Stroot
772 A.2d 792, Web 2001 Del. Lexis 2278 (2001) Supreme Court of Delaware
“The presumption in Delaware is that a jury verdict is ‘correct and just.’”
—Justice Berger
Facts
Elizabeth Stroot was a tenant at Haverford Place apartments, which was owned by New Haverford Partnership. Stroot was 33-year-old graduate student. After moving into her apartment, Stroot noticed mold around the windows and in the bathroom. Although she attempted to remove the mold with bleach, the mold kept returning. There were also water leaks in the bathroom ceiling and in the kitchen and bathroom.
Stroot moved to another apartment at Haverford Place. Here, the bathroom ceiling leaked. Within a few months, the leaks caused holes in the drywall, and the edges of the holes were covered with a black substance. When Stroot showered, black water ran out of the holes. Stroot complained to the management, but nothing was done. One evening, Stroot’s bathroom ceiling collapsed, and water flooded her floor. The exposed ceiling was covered with black, green, orange, and white mold. The room had a strong, nauseating odor. Stroot slept in the apartment that night. The next morning she could not breathe. Stroot called an ambulance and was taken to the hospital. When she was released from the hospital, Stroot decided she could no longer live at Haverford Place.
Subsequently, the symptoms of Stroot’s allergies and asthma, which she had suffered from since childhood, increased significantly. She was forced to go to the emergency room of the hospital seven times. She spent time as an inpatient at the hospital. Stroot incurred over $28,000 in medical expenses. Stroot sued New Haverford Partnership to recover damages for negligence for causing her medical problems because it permitted the water leaks and mold problem to persist in her apartments.
Stroot offered testimony from several expert witnesses. Michael Lynn, an architect, examined the property and discovered excessive mold. Dr. Yang, a mycologist and microbiologist, testified that mold levels at Haverford Place posed a serious health risk to Stroot. Dr. Johanning, an environmental and occupational medical expert, testified that the toxic mold significantly and permanently increased the severity of Stroot’s asthma. Dr. Rose, an expert in pulmonary medicine, testified that Stroot developed osteopenia. And Dr. Gordon, a neuropsychologist, testified that Stroot suffered from permanent cognitive defects caused by exposure to the mold.
The jury found the landlord liable for negligence and awarded Stroot $1 million, reduced by 22 percent based on Stroot’s own negligence. The landlord appealed the finding of negligence and also made a motion for remittitur, asking the court that if it was held liable for negligence to reduce the amount of the award from $1 million to $250,000.
Issue
Was New Haverford Partnership liable for negligence, and if so, was the amount of the award of damages to Stroot appropriate?
Language of the Court
· To state a claim for negligence one must allege that defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care; defendant breached that duty; and defendant’s breach was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. In sum, we find no error in the trial court’s decision allowing plaintiffs to pursue an ordinary, or common law, negligence claim.
· Landlord argues that the amount awarded to Stroot was so excessive that it shocks the conscience. At best, according to Landlord, these injuries could support an award of $250,000, not the $1,000,000 set by the jury. The presumption in Delaware is that a jury verdict is 772773“correct and just.” A Motion for Remittitur may be granted only with great reluctance. The jury obviously accepted Dr. Johanning’s and Dr. Rose’s medical testimony in this case that despite other triggers which could cause her to have an asthma attack, Stroot’s asthma was nevertheless significantly exacerbated or worsened by her exposure to microbial contamination at the apartment complex, and that her need for medication increased significantly after she moved to Haverford Place. The Court is satisfied that Stroot showed to a reasonable degree of medical probability that her asthma symptoms decreased, but did not return to her pre-exposure baseline, after she left the apartment complex. Further, the jury may have also chosen to accept Dr. Wayne Gordon’s testimony that Stroot’s cognitive deficits in three areas—attention, concentration, and executive functioning—were proximately caused by her long-term exposure to microbial contamination at Haverford Place.
· Given the permanent nature of Plaintiff’s injuries as well as the physical and emotional pain and suffering
· Stroot will have to endure for the remainder of her life, the Court does not find the $1,000,000 verdict to Stroot unreasonable, nor is its conscience shocked.
Decision
The supreme court of Delaware held that New Haverford Partnership was negligent and the award of damages to Stroot was supported by the evidence. The supreme court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Stroot.
Do you think the award of damages in this case was appropriate? Why or why not?
Project Format
verview
. Examples are Case 10.3- Montgomery v. English on page 175 and Case 14.2- Page v. Gulf Coast Motors on page 111. Choose the case you wish to research and then do the following:
1. Read and understand the case. Show your Analysis and Reasoning and make it clear you understand the material. Be sure to use the concepts of the course to show your reasoning. Summarize the situation. Dedicate at least one heading to each following outline topic:
a. Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant and tell something about them.]
b. Facts [Summarize those facts critical to the outcome of the case.]
c. Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?]
d. Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns.]
e. Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]
f. Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision.]
g. Case Questions [Be sure to address and thoroughly answer each and every case question and each part of each question.]
h. Conclusion [This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the court's ruling.]
i. Include citations on the slides and a reference page with your sources. Use APA style citations and references.
2. Do significant research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something about the parties or other interesting related area. Show something you have discovered about the case, parties, or other important element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case.
3. Pay strict attention to quality in terms of substance, form, grammar, and context.
Deliverables
Course Project Submission: Your Course Project is due in Week 6. Submit your assignment to the Week 6 "Course Project" Dropbox.
General Expectations
Next, write your paper according to the style guidelines below. Your assignment should be a 1,500-2,500 word APA style paper. It should be completed as a MS Word document, typed in Times New Roman font, and size 12. Your paper should be double-spaced with 1-inch margins all around. Make sure your text is aligned left. Before submission, be sure to perform a spell check and read over your paper carefully for grammatical errors. Double-check that you have properly cited (using APA) all of your borrowed material.
Submit your paper to the Week 6 Dropbox titled "Course Project" located on the silver tab at the top of this page.
Grading Rubrics
|
Category |
Points |
% |
Description |
|
Content |
90 |
50% |
A quality paper will have significant scope and depth of research to support any statements. Relevant illustration or examples are encouraged. A quality paper will employ sound use of reasoning and logic to reinforce conclusions. All required content will be addressed and included in the proper sections. |
|
Organization and Cohesiveness |
36 |
20% |
The logical order of the content will be derived from the assignment. The content will be properly subdivided into sections derived from the outline. In a quality paper, the conclusion will summarize the previously presented content. |
|
Editing |
27 |
15% |
A quality paper will be free of any spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors. Sentences and paragraphs will be clear, concise, and factually correct. |
|
Documentation & Formatting |
27 |
15% |
A quality paper will include a title page, abstract, proper citations using APA style, and a bibliography. A quality paper will have significant scope and depth of research to support any statements. Relevant illustration or examples are encouraged. |
|
Total |
180 |
100 |
A quality paper will meet or exceed all of the above requirements. |
Citation Help
Remember to cite your sources properly, both parenthetically and in your bibliography/works cited. If you need assistance with proper citation be certain to review "How to Avoid Plagiarism", "APA guidelines for Citing Sources Tutorial", the "APA Handbook", the "Student APA Training Tutorial", and the "American Psychological Association (APA) Website" all available in the Syllabus.
