Sandoe v. Lefta Associates

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs suffered an “injury in fact” because they had suffered significant injuries and might not be able to recover damages due to the statute of repose
• pointing out this court’s previous elimination of the common law distinction between invitees and licenses and adopting a reasonable care standard as to persons lawfully upon the premises
• pointing out this court's previous elimination of the common law distinction between invitees and licenses and adopting a reasonable care standard as to persons lawfully upon the premises
• “this jurisdiction does not recognize varying standards of care depending upon the relationship of the parties but always requires reasonable care to be exercised under all the circumstances”
• plaintiff injured when she stepped on an airshaft grate that suddenly collapsed
• “A [landowner] . . . is responsible, 10 of course, for injuries resulting from risks created personally or by his employees.” (quoting Smith v. Arbaugh’s Rest., Inc., 469 F.2d 97, 106 n.48 (D.C. Cir. 1972))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).