McCarty V. Pheasant Run, Inc.

McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc. (1987)

McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc. (1987) is a civil case, in which Mrs. McCarty had brought a negligence suit against the large resort Pheasant Run. The Plaintiff (McCarty) had checked into the resort and left for dinner later in the day. When the plaintiff returned, she got ready for bed in the bathroom. When the plaintiff exited the bathroom a man had broken into the room and waited for the plaintiff to exit the bathroom. Once the plaintiff exited the bathroom the man assaulted and battered the plaintiff threatening to rape her. The plaintiff fought off the man and the man ran away. The plaintiff had minimal physical injuries, but claims to have serious emotional distress from the incident. After an investigation of the incident by the police it was found that a sliding glass door that was covered by drapes was closed but unlocked.

Opinion on Courts Decision

In order to determine whether the defendant (Pheasant Run) was negligent; the plaintiff must satisfy four elements to receive compensation for negligence. The four elements are duty, breach, causation, and damages. The jury ruled in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff appealed to the courts. Judge Posner affirmed the ruling of the district court, denying the motions from the plaintiff for judgment notwithstanding (n.o.v.) the jury's verdict for the defendant. Judge Posner agreed with the district judge grounds for denial of the motion for judgment n.o.v. Since there was no basis on which the judge could reverse the jury's verdict, as the facts brought up in the case did not clearly prove negligence against the defendant. Also, stating that the rejection of the plaintiff's theories was not unreasonable.

Judge Posner states, "for many years to come juries may be forced to make rough judgments of reasonableness, intuiting rather than measuring the factors in the Hand Formula..." (Best & Barnes, 2010 p. 99). This statement says that in the coming years that juror's will have to come up with their own decisions and judgments of reasonableness using their intuition; and as long as their decision is reasonable, the trial judge has no right to overrule their judgement. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not offer ideas on how the mishap could of been prevented. Thus failing to give the jury the information needed to apply the Hand Formula to this case. The Hand Formula is a measurement that is used in the courts in determining negligence. The defense would be negligent if the burden of prevention, is less than the probability of loss, multiplied by the magnitude of loss that would be avoided with the possible prevention.

References

...