expert’s opinion that defendant’s lack of security was “gross negligence” an improper legal conclusion
How later courts described this case
- expert’s opinion that defendant’s lack of security was “gross negligence” an improper legal conclusion
- expert’s opinion that defendant’s lack of security was “gross negligence” was improper legal conclusion
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge BECTON
dissenting.
In my view, the record does not contain even a scintilla of evidence supporting a finding that plaintiff was contributorily negligent by her failure to look out the bathroom window. To suggest that a sixty-two-year-old woman must go to a bathroom, stand on a bathtub, crank open a window and stick her head out to see who was knocking to overcome a contributory negligence defense is anomalous in view of the jury’s conclusion that plaintiffs act of opening the door and her failure to call the desk clerk was not contributory negligence. I vote to affirm.