Case Summaries, Due: March 19, 11:59PM Instructions for New York Case Summaries: At the back of most chapters (with the exception of chapters one, two and three), you will find briefs of New York cases that address issues studied in the chapter. These briefs are located after the Questions and Case Problems. They include at the top a case number followed by the name of the case, the court in which it was decided, and the citation. Occasionally the Lecture materials reference and/or discuss one of the case briefs. Those cases should not be used for this assignment. The case summaries will total 20% of your final grade. Throughout the course a number of case summaries will be due. These summaries (100-150 words each) will state in your own words the factual issue that led the parties to court, the judge's decision, and the reasoning utilized to reach that decision. Case No. 25 NEGLIGENCE/BREACH OF DUTY Merrill v. The State of New York Court of Claims 110 Misc.2d 260, 442 N.Y.S.2d 352 (1981) FACTS: Plaintiff Theophane Merrill and his wife Virginia, both deaf, attended the New York State Fair in Syracuse, New York, with their two children on September 3, 1977. They drove to the fair from their home in Rochester. When they reached the fairgrounds, at about 1:30 p.m., the parking lots were full. At the direction of a state trooper they parked their car near the fairgrounds on a grassy median of Interstate Route 690. The median, which had been used for parking for the state fair in prior years, was in the middle of three lanes of eastbound traffic and two lanes of westbound traffic. The speed limit on Route 690 was 55 m.p.h. To reach the fairgrounds from the median pedestrians had to cross the three lanes of eastbound traffic. The Merrills reached the fairgrounds safely and remained at the fair until midnight. After leaving the fairgrounds they crossed the three lanes of traffic to the median but then had difficulty finding their car. The state trooper who had directed them earlier was not present. The median had no street lights. The Merrills, trying to find their car, walked back and forth single file along the median, on the yellow line that identified the edge of the lane of highway. While their backs faced oncoming traffic a car hit Theophane Merrill, cutting off part of his right arm. At the moment he was hit, Merrill was slightly to the right of the yellow line in a lane of traveled highway. No signs along the median warned drivers of pedestrian traffic. Merrill sued the State of New York for negligence, seeking compensation for his injuries. ISSUE: Did the State of New York breach a duty of care by directing fairgoers to park in the median of an interstate highway? DECISION: Yes, judgment for Merrill. REASONING: Directing cars to park on a state highway created a foreseeable risk of injury to the fairgoers. The state, having created such a risk, had a duty to protect against the foreseeable injury. It failed to meet this responsibility. Fair.

1. Case Summaries, Due: March 19, 11:59PM
Instructions for New York Case Summaries:
At the back of most chapters (with the exception of chapters one, two and three), you will find
briefs of New York cases that address issues studied in the chapter. These briefs are located after
the Questions and Case Problems. They include at the top a case number followed by the name
of the case, the court in which it was decided, and the citation.
Occasionally the Lecture materials reference and/or discuss one of the case briefs. Those cases
should not be used for this assignment.
The case summaries will total 20% of your final grade.
Throughout the course a number of case summaries will be due. These summaries (100-150
words each) will state in your own words the factual issue that led the parties to court, the judge's
decision, and the reasoning utilized to reach that decision.
Case No. 25
NEGLIGENCE/BREACH OF DUTY
Merrill v. The State of New York Court of Claims
110 Misc.2d 260, 442 N.Y.S.2d 352 (1981)
FACTS: Plaintiff Theophane Merrill and his wife Virginia, both deaf, attended the New York
State Fair in Syracuse, New York, with their two children on September 3, 1977. They drove to
the fair from their home in Rochester. When they reached the fairgrounds, at about 1:30 p.m., the
parking lots were full. At the direction of a state trooper they parked their car near the
fairgrounds on a grassy median of Interstate Route 690. The median, which had been used for
parking for the state fair in prior years, was in the middle of three lanes of eastbound traffic and
two lanes of westbound traffic. The speed limit on Route 690 was 55 m.p.h.
To reach the fairgrounds from the median pedestrians had to cross the three lanes of eastbound
traffic.
The Merrills reached the fairgrounds safely and remained at the fair until midnight. After leaving
the fairgrounds they crossed the three lanes of traffic to the median but then had difficulty
finding their car. The state trooper who had directed them earlier was not present. The median
had no street lights. The Merrills, trying to find their car, walked back and forth single file along
the median, on the yellow line that identified the edge of the lane of highway. While their backs
faced oncoming traffic a car hit Theophane Merrill, cutting off part of his right arm. At the
moment he was hit, Merrill was slightly to the right of the yellow line in a lane of traveled
highway.

2. No signs along the median warned drivers of pedestrian traffic.
Merrill sued the State of New York for negligence, seeking compensation for his injuries.
ISSUE: Did the State of New York breach a duty of care by directing fairgoers to park in the
median of an interstate highway?
DECISION: Yes, judgment for Merrill.
REASONING: Directing cars to park on a state highway created a foreseeable risk of injury to
the fairgoers. The state, having created such a risk, had a duty to protect against the foreseeable
injury. It failed to meet this responsibility. Fairgoers had to cross three lanes of highway traffic,
the highway was not lighted, no trooper was present to direct traffic, and no warning signs for
drivers were installed. The state's conduct thus constituted negligence. The state was therefore
liable to Merrill who was injured by the negligence.
The court acknowledged that Merrill was acting negligently at the time he was hit. By walking
on the portion of the highway used by cars with his back to traffic Merrill was exposing himself
to the foreseeable risk of injury from an oncoming car.
Applying the rule of comparative negligence, 10% of the liability for the accident was allocated
to him.
NOTE: The operator of the car that hit Merrill was also found to be negligent. The driver paid a
portion of the damages awarded to Merrill pursuant to an out-of-court settlement.
* * * QUESTIONS* * *
(See back of text for answers)
I) What actions might the state have taken to avoid liability in this case?
Would the outcome have been different if Merrill was not deaf? Why or why not?
Case No. 28
NEGLIGENCE/ABSENCE OF A DUTY
Kosokv.YounKMen'sChristianAssociationAppellate Division, First Department
24 A.D.2d 113, 264 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1965)
FACTS: Plaintiff Karl Kosok (Kosok) attended a summer camp sponsored by the defendant,
Y.M.C.A. in Orange County, New York. The camp schedule included a rest period immediately
following lunch. During this period the older campers were required to stay close to their cabins
and engage only in quiet activity. For the younger campers bed rest was required.
One day during the rest period Kosok, then 12 years old, was invited into a cabin of 15-year-
olds. Inside, the boys had rigged a galvanized pail to the end of fishing line attached to a fishing
rod and raised the pail above the entrance way to the cabin by reeling in the line. When Kosok
entered the cabin the 15-year-olds let out the line causing the pail to drop and hit Kosok,
resulting in injuries. Kosok sued the Y.M.C.A. camp claiming it was negligent by breaching a

3. duty to supervise the activities of the boys during the rest period.
The total number of campers in attendance at the camp was 200; the number of counselors was
33. Camp regulations did not require counselors of the 15- year-old boys to remain in the cabin
during rest periods. Such counselors frequently were absent from the cabins during rest period
but usually were on the cabin porch or nearby. At the time of the pail incident no counselor was
present in the cabin.
ISSUE: Did the camp owe a duty to the campers to have a counselor in each cabin throughout
the entire rest period?
DECISION: No, judgment for the camp.
REASONING: A duty to supervise arises when the camp is put on notice of potentially
dangerous activity. Had noise or some other telltale hint emanated from the cabin a duty to
supervise the events would result. No such noise or other warning event occurred in this case.
Also, constant supervision at a summer camp is neither possible nor desirable. A certain amount
of rough and/or boisterous play is common at summer camps and should not be suppressed
unless it becomes dangerous.
* * * QUESTIONS* * *
(See back of text for answers)
Assume the campers in the cabin with the rigged pail did the same stunt during the rest period on
the day immediately after Kosok was injured and that a second camper was injured as a result.
Assume further that no counselor was on duty in the cabin at
the time the second camper was injured. If the second injured camper sued the camp for
negligence, might the decision of the court be different? Why or why not?
Assume the following additional facts: the camp was located 25 miles from a maximum-security
prison; an inmate in the prison escaped one summer morning; the prison officials called the camp
director to inform her of the escape; the escaped inmate entered an unattended cabin at the camp
during rest period on the day following the escape and kidnapped one of the campers. The
camper was rescued several days later but had been beaten by the inmate and suffered severe
injuries. If the camper sued the camp for his injuries based on negligence, would the camp be
liable for the injuries? Why or why not?
Case Summaries, Due: March 19, 11:59PM
Instructions for New York Case Summaries:
At the back of most chapters (with the exception of chapters one, two and three), you will find
briefs of New York cases that address issues studied in the chapter. These briefs are located after
the Questions and Case Problems. They include at the top a case number followed by the name

4. of the case, the court in which it was decided, and the citation.
Occasionally the Lecture materials reference and/or discuss one of the case briefs. Those cases
should not be used for this assignment.
The case summaries will total 20% of your final grade.
Throughout the course a number of case summaries will be due. These summaries (100-150
words each) will state in your own words the factual issue that led the parties to court, the judge's
decision, and the reasoning utilized to reach that decision.