Marinopoliski v. Irish

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming directed verdict because there was no basis for the jury to reasonably conclude that the hazard created was foreseeable
• while “we recognize that an issue such as constructive notice is peculiarly within the province of the jury . . . juries cannot be permitted to engage in idle speculation” (citation omitted)
• while “we recognize that an issue such as constructive notice is peculiarly within the province of the jury . . . juries cannot be permitted to engage in idle speculation” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he cause of the injury must be foreseeable . . . and the cause must have been present in the area where the injury occurred for a sufficient length of time that the property owner should have known about it.”
• “To create a jury question in a negligence case, the plaintiff must produce evidence from which a reasonable juror may conclude that a certain hazard caused the injury and that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of that hazard.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).