Trimarco v. Klein
Citation and Court
56 N.Y.2d 98 (1982), Court of Appeals of New York
Facts
Trimarco was seriously injured when he fell through the glass door of his bathtub enclosure in an apartment leased from Klein. The glass was ordinary annealed glass rather than safety glass. By the time of the accident, there was a widespread custom in the building trades of using shatterproof or safety glass in shower and tub enclosures, and local building codes had been amended to require it in new construction. Klein had not replaced the glass.
Issue
Whether evidence of a custom to use safety glass in tub enclosures is relevant and sufficient evidence of the applicable standard of care in a negligence action against a landlord.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that evidence of custom is relevant and admissible as evidence of the standard of care, and that the jury’s verdict for Trimarco was supported by the evidence of widespread custom.
Rule / Doctrine
Evidence of a custom or practice within an industry or trade is relevant and admissible as evidence of the standard of care in a negligence case, but custom is not conclusive — the jury may find that even a common practice is unreasonably dangerous and falls below the standard of reasonable care. Conversely, deviation from a well-established custom is strong evidence of negligence.
Significance
Trimarco v. Klein is the leading New York case on the role of custom as evidence of the standard of care. It illustrates the interplay between custom and the negligence standard, following the framework articulated in The T.J. Hooper (learned hand) — that custom may be relevant evidence but is not the legal standard.