If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Case Analysis - Kuzmica v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Case Analysis - Kuzmica v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Case Analysis - Kuzmica v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Case Analysis - Kuzmica v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments paper at affordable prices!
Case Brief Analysis
Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments, Inc.
Richard R. Hall
Legal Environment of Business Law 5
Cheap Custom Essays on Case Analysis - Kuzmica v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments
P. Croushore, JD, LLM
March , 00
Case Brief
Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments, Inc., 147 N.J. 510 (N.J. Sup.Ct. 17)
Plaintiff and Defendant
The plaintiff is Ireneusz Kuzmicz.The defendants are Ivy Hill Park Apartments, Inc., Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, and the Newark Board of Education.
Facts
Mr. Kuzmicz was assaulted on vacant land owned by Newark Board of Education (Board).The lot is located between Ivy Hill Park Apartments and a grocery store owned by Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P).An opening in the fence allows a person to use the Board's property as a short cut to the grocery store.The issue is do Ivy Hill Apartments and A&P owe Mr. Kuzmicz a duty to protect him from the risk of assault on the Board's property by warning him of the risk of off-premises criminal assaults or by fixing the opening in the fence.
Lower Courts
The lower court awarded Mr. Kuzmicz $175,000.The court apportioned liability as 1) Ivy Hill fifty percent; ) Board of Education thirty percent; and ) Mr. Kuzmicz twenty percent (Corley, Reed, Sheed, and Moorehead, 1, p. 08).
The Appellate Division affirmed holding that Ivy Hill Apartments had a duty of care to protect tenants from criminal activity on the Board's lot by warning them of criminalactivity or by fixing the opening in the fence (Corley et al., 1, p. 08).The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of the A&P's motion for a summary judgment, distinguishing the A&P from Ivy Hill (Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apts., Inc., 17).The court decided as a tenant of the shopping center, A&P did not have a duty to maintain a fence and evidence is not sufficient to show that A&P knew of the criminal activity on the Board's lot (Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apts., Inc., 17).
Issue Appealed
The trail court denied the Ivy Hill Apartments, Inc.'s request for a summary judgment motion.The issue for the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether a landlord had a duty to protect tenants by warning of the risk of criminal assault on an adjacent lot or by fixing an opening in the fence separating the apartment complex from the Board's adjacent lot (Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apts., Inc., 17).
Who Wins
Ivy Hill Park Apartments wins the case.
Reasoning
The court could not find any precedent or statutory authority; therefore, it ruled that a landlord does not owe a duty to protect people from criminal activity on adjacent premises that the landlord does not own, control or receive a significant commercial benefit (Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apts., Inc., 17).
Case Questions
1.Why does the trail court make the plaintiff Kuzmicz absorb 0 percent of the liability? (Hint. See numbered subsection 15 on defenses to negligence.)
According to Corley et al. (1) under the doctrine of comparative responsibility a plaintiff's contributory negligence does not bar recovery.The doctrine compares the plaintiff's fault with the defendant's and reduces the damage award proportionally (p. 11).The jury determined 0 percent of the injury was due to the plaintiff's own fault.
.If the attack on Kuzmicz had occurred on apartment property, would the apartment owner have been liable?
The New Jersey Courts have precedent specifically Braitman v. Overlook Terrace Corporation (175) and Trentacost v. Brussel (180) that landlords should be held liable for foreseeable injuries that occur on their premises.The reasoning is that landlords are in the best position to control risk of harm.In summary, the apartment owner would have been held liable.
References
Braitman v. Overlook Terrace Corporation, 68 N.J. 68 (N.J. Sup.Ct. 175).Retrieved March , 00, from Rutgers School of Law Website http//lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/
Corley, R. N., Reed, O. L., Sheed, P. J., Moorehead, J. W. (1). The legal regulatory environment of business. Boston Irwin McGraw-Hill.Retrieved February 6, 00, from University of Phoenix, Resource, Law 5Legal Environment of Business Web Site https//mycampus.phoenix.edu/secure/resource/resource.asp
Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apts., Inc., 147 N.J. 510 (N.J. Sup.Ct. 17).Retrieved March , 00, from Rutgers School of Law Website http//lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/a-5-6.opn.html
Trentacost v. Brussel, 8 N.J. 14 (N.J. Sup.Ct.180).Retrieved March , 00, from Rutgers School of Law Website http//lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/
Please note that this sample paper on Case Analysis - Kuzmica v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Case Analysis - Kuzmica v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments, we are here to assist you.Your cheap custom college paper on Case Analysis - Kuzmica v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
