There is an interesting potential torts case in New York. A woman in her fifties apparently decided to commit suicide at a Mall by jumping from an upper level. She landed on 17-year-old Derrick MuInoz who was knocked unconscious and suffered a large gash on his head.
While it is unlikely that the Mall could be held liable for such a criminal act, Mulnoz could sue the estate of the woman for battery in a wrongful death action. Mental problems or insanity is generally not a defense to intentional torts as shown in the famous case of McGuire v. Almy, 8 N.E.2d 760 (1937). Moreover, while she did not intend to harm Mulnoz, he could argue that there was “substantial certainty” that she would hit someone in a crowded Mall during spring break.
For the full story, click here.
Jumping off a building above a busy sidewalk creates an unreasonable risk to pedestrians, thus creating liability in favor of anyone injured below. Honestly, suicidal people can be so thoughtless!
My understanding of tort law was that it didn’t matter if she indended to cause injury to him, only that she had in fact caused that injury. I.E.: you don’t intend to slam your car in an accident, but you caused the accident, and therefore you are liable. Also, if you mop the floor and someone slips, even if you placed a sign, are you (the business) not still liable?
It was noted by the ABA that the largest category of posts on this blog fell (HA) under: Bizarre.
Don’t be surprised if the woman’s family sues young Mulnoz for wrongful death for failing to break her fall sufficiently.
I was wondering if you had seen this story — after all that time in class talking about your fascination with falling body torts
Indeed, it is the most recent addition to my collection of falling body cases of injuries caused by falling bodies (animal and human). Gruesome, yes, but it is the grist of the torts mill.