This paper is to be a summary of what you have learned in my class, whether it is from reading a newspaper, from my lectures, and/or from the textbook (three things that do not rot your brain or waste

Berg A lla sa ne douko ure B us 11 0 0 3/0 5/2 026 CASE ANALYSIS : WIKINS V.

WEST HERLEM GROUP ASSISTANCE, INC(2018) I s su es A s a co nse q uen ce of th e case s, th e most im porta n t is su e th at su rfa ced was wheth er or not t h e Res Ip sa Loquitu r co ncep t co uld be ap plie d to th e situ atio n in whic h th e win dow s of t h e pla in tif f fe ll afte r he had mad e th e decis io n to lo ck ro om s.

As a re su lt of th e fa c t th at t h ey were not aw are of an y win dow fla w s, th e guard ia n s of th e dep en den ts who were t h ere at th e tim e sh ould not be held re sp onsib le fo r dam ag es th at may hav e hap pen ed w ith in th e win dow .

In ord er fo r th e co urt to ev alu ate wheth er th e defe n dan t was dir e ctly r e sp onsib le fo r th e tr a g ed y, it was necessa ry fo r th e co urt to re ach th e opin io n th at th e a ccid en t its e lf was su ff ic ie n t pro of.

R ule R es Ip sa Loquitu r is in volv in g th e le g al ru le of “th e th in gs he sp eak s fo r its e lf .

It is use d f o r th e neg lig en ce of case in th is case th ere is no dir e c t pro of of th e neg lig en ce.

The re al e v en ts in th is case would be su ggestin g th at so m eo ne must hav e hap pen ed ca se le ss.

H ere is a lis tin g of th e th re e ru le s th at are ap plie d to th is parti c u la r cir c u m sta n ce , whic h a re as fo llo w s:

D ouko ure 2 W hen co nsid erin g th e accid en t, th e fir s t th in g th at sp rin gs to min d is so m eth in g th at n ev er hap pen s with out neg lig en ce.I t is th e re sp onsib ili ty of th e defe n dan t to en su re th at t h e cir c u m sta n ces su rro undin g th e ev en t th at re su lte d in th e in ju rie s occ u r.

T hir d , th e wounded pers o n is not th e one who ca u se d th e ac cid en ts .

M ore o ver, in ord er to pro vid e fu rth er cla rif ic atio n ab out th is dec is io n, th e co urt will mak e r e fe re n ce to pre v io us case s.

It was dete rm in ed by th e co urt in th e ca se of More jo n v.

Ria s C onstr u ctio n Com pan y th at th e Res Ip sa Loquitu r doctr in e mig ht be use d in c ir c u m sta n ces where th ere is no dir e ct av oid an ce of th e ju ris d ic tio n.

A fu rth er ca se th at w as pre se n te d befo re th e co urt is know n as Derm ato ssia n v.

New York City Tra n sit A uth ority (A nsh i Mudgal, 2024).

It was hig hlig hte d by th e co urt in a way th at was both s im ple an d su ccin ct th at th e defe n dan t would hav e re sp onsib ili ty over th e obje ct th at was a cco unta b le fo r th e in ju rie s.

A pplic atio ns T he ad m in is tr a tio n of ch ild re n se rv ic es (A CS), whic h is th e pla in tif f in th is ca se , is r e p re se n te d by a peace off ic er who is em plo yed by th e org an iz a ti o n.

The defe n dan t was r e sp onsib le fo r main ta in in g th e build in g th at acco m modate d th e ACS off ic e sp ac e whil e t h e pla in tif f was in th e lo ck er are a goin g th ro ugh th e pro cess of ch an gin g clo th es on one o f th e day s.

This is th e mom en t when he open ed th e win dow in ord er to brin g th e t e m pera tu re of th e ro om dow n.

Afte r so m e tim e had passe d , he dec id ed to mak e an eff o rt t o clo se th e win dow .

His head was str u ck by th e su dden fa ll of th e whole str u ctu re , whic h c au se d him to su sta in se v ere in ju rie s (D olla r, 2024).

He had ju st co m ple te d sh uttin g th e w in dow when th e build in g su dden ly fe ll .

D ouko ure 3 A la w su it was file d by th e pla in tif f , who sa id th at th e defe n dan t had bee n ca re le ss an d a rg ued th at th e prin cip le of re s ip sa lo quitu r was to be ap plie d in ac co rd an ce wit h th e c ir c u m sta n ces.

Durin g th e tim e th at th e defe n dan t was re q uestin g th at th e co urt hea r th e c ase , he sa id th at he was not aw are of an y pro ble m wit h th e win dow , an d as a c o nse q uen ce, he co uld not be held re sp onsib le fo r it.

T he case has been in vestig ate d by th e co urt, an d it has dete rm in ed th at th ere are th re e c o m ponen ts of re s ip sa lo quitu r.

I t is esse n tia l to keep in min d th at th e win dow fra m e does not ofte n co m e out ju st beca u se s o m eo ne clo se s th e win dow .

This is th e fir s t th in g th at sh ould be kep t in min d.

The i n cid en ce of in cid en ts of th is natu re is so m eth in g th at hap pen s on a daily fre q uen cy.

It is q uite pro bab le th at th is kin d of dis a ste r to ok pla ce as a co nse q uen ce of ca re le ss m ain te n an ce, a malf u nctio n, an d a la ck of atte n ti o n to deta il.

S eco ndly , th e win dow was an in te g ra l co m ponen t of th e build in g's fr a m ew ork .

Becau se t h e defe n dan t had co ntr o l over th e win dow , th e buil d in g man ag er was re sp onsib le fo r m ain ta in in g th e build in g an d its fittin gs, desp it e th e fa ct th at ACS work ers utili z e d th e r o om (W ilk in s v West Harle m Gro up Assis ta n ce , In c., 2018).

They were als o lia b le fo r m ain ta in in g th e build in g.

T his le ad s to th e th ir d is su e:

th e pla in tif f was re g ula rly utili z in g th e win dow .

There was n o ev id en ce th at he utiliz ed ex cessiv e fo rc e or unla w fu l ac ti o ns to sh ut it dow n.

A fte r dete rm in in g th at th ese th re e qualif ic atio ns may be met, th e co urt co nsid ere d re s ip sa l o quitu r.

The case was co ntin ued so a ju ry co uld dete rm in e wheth er th e defe n dan t was D ouko ure 4 n eg lig en t.

Afte r a hig her co urt overru le d a pre v io us co urt's dis m is sa l, th is ju dgm en t was m ad e.

C onclu sio n T he co urt co nclu ded th at th e le g al do ctr in e of re s ip sa lo quitu r may be use d in th is s p ecif ic case sin ce th e accid en t was uniq ue an d sh ow ed ev id en ce of neg lig en ce.

In most s itu atio ns, a win dow co m in g out of its fr a m e whil e bein g ro utin ely use d is not so m eth in g t h at ofte n hap pen s with out a fla w in th e win dow 's in sta lla tio n or main te n an ce.

It sh ow ed t h at th e pla in tif f had re g ula rly utiliz ed th e win dow , an d th e build in g man ag em en t had a d uty to mak e su re th e build in g sta y ed in perfe ct sh ap e.

I ag re e with th e ru lin g th at th e co urt re cen tly re n dere d .

It se em s th at th ere was an is su e w ith th e win dow as a re su lt of th e in cid en t th at occu rr e d .

It is re aso nab le to giv e th e ju ry t h e ch an ce to lo ok at th e fa cts an d decid e wheth er or not th e defe n dan t was neg lig en t s in ce th ey were re sp onsib le fo r th e fa c ili ty 's upkee p .

Work cited: D ouko ure 5 Anshi Mudgal. (2024). Negligence in Tort Law: Res Ipsa Loquitur and Negligence Per Se. Lawshelf.com. "https://www .lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/negligence-in-tort-law-res-ipsa-lo quitur -and-negligence-per -se/" https://www .lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/neg ligence-in-tort-law-res-ipsa-loquitur -and-negligence-per-se/ Dollar , S. (2024, September 8). Understanding Premises Liability: Who is Responsible for Your Injuries? Smith Dollar Attorneys at Law.

"https://smithdollar .com/2024/09/understanding-premises-liability-who-is-responsible -for-your -injuries/" https://smithdollar .com/2024/09/understanding-premises-liability- who-is-responsible-for -your-injuries/ W ilkins v West Harlem Group Assistance, Inc. (2018). Justia Law.

"https://law .justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2018/7780 -109107-1 1.html" https://law .justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-depart ment/2018/7780-109107-1 1.html