Bader v. United Orthodox Synagogue

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that expert testimony was not required to support plaintiff’s claim that the absence of a porch railing was a structural defect where a jury could consider photographs showing the conditions of the porch
• expert testimony not required to support plaintiffs claim that absence of proper porch railing was structural defect
• “Expert testimony was not required to support the claim of the plaintiff that the absence of a proper or suitable porch railing was a structural defect and therefore constituted corporate negligence.”
• ‘‘[e]xpert testimony was not required to support the claim of the plaintiff that the absence of a proper or suitable porch railing was a structural defect and therefore constituted corporate negligence’’
• ‘‘[e]xpert testimony was not required to support the claim of the plaintiff that the absence of a proper or suitable porch railing was a structural defect and there- fore constituted . . . negligence’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).