Sarah Danzig and Robert L. Danzig v. Virgin Isle Hotel, Inc.

286 F.2d 960
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Sarah Danzig and Robert L. Danzig v. Virgin Isle Hotel, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 278 F.2d 580
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided March 22, 1961·No. 13252·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action brought to recover for personal injuries claimed to have been suffered from a fall in defendant’s hotel. The parties are not in dispute about the principle of law which governs such a case and each agrees with the general statement of the obligation of the proprietor of premises to a business guest found in the Restatement of Torts. The disputed point is whether there was sufficient evidence of violation of the duty of care to justify a jury verdict for the plaintiff. It is not a very strong case but we think there is enough to justify its submission to a jury. It was so submitted and the jury decided for the plaintiff.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sarah Danzig and Robert L. Danzig v. Virgin Isle Hotel, Inc., 286 F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1961).

286 F.2d 960 (Sarah Danzig and Robert L. Danzig v. Virgin Isle Hotel, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.