|
|
|
WHEN EMPLOYEES DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES: WHEN INTERNAL COMPANY RULES ARE NOT FOLLOWED
Erika L. Omundson, Esquire and Richard Gash, Esquire
Occasionally, we are faced with a situation where a client has an internal company rule that has not been followed by an employee. During general discovery, Plaintiff's counsel learns of the internal company rule and attempts to argue that by reason of the failure to follow its own internal rule, the company and its employee should be found negligent. However, the principle of law from Sherman v. Robinson states that a "[v]iolation of a company's internal rules is not negligence in and of itself, and where such rules require a standard that transcends reasonable care, breach cannot be considered evidence of negligence." citing Longacre v. Yonkers R. R. Co.
Recently, this theory of law was affirmed in Gilson v. Metropolitan Opera. In that case, a patron returned to his seat unescorted after the lights had dimmed. A disabled patron (who walks unsteadily) stood to allow the late-arriving patron to his seat when the late-arriving patron lost his balance and fell into the disabled patron causing her to fall four rows and into the balcony railing. The disabled patron sued for her injuries and tried to argue that the Defendant's internal company rule established independent evidence of negligence. Specifically, the internal rule cited by Plaintiff provided that "[t]icket holders should be escorted to their seats with the aid of flashlights when the House Lights are low, and particularly requested to watch their step." Citing the proposition in Sherman v. Robinson, the Court determined that the internal guidelines went beyond the standard of ordinary care and could not serve as a basis for imposing liability.
This theory of law also appears in a line of NYCTA cases that declare that the internal rules are inadmissible when they impose a higher standard than that otherwise set by law. These First Department cases are cited for the proposition that "[w]hile internal operating rules may provide some evidence of whether reasonable care has been taken and thus some evidence of the defendant's negligence or absence thereof, such rules must be excluded, as a matter of law, if they require a standard of care which transcends the area of reasonable care." Lesser v. M.A.B.S.T.O.A. citing Danbois v. New York Central Railroad Company.
Recently, we were confronted with a situation where our employee failed to abide by the company rule that prohibits an ambulance passenger from walking to or from the ambulance unless the passenger is in a chair or on a stretcher. Plaintiff in this case was walking out of the ambulance when her foot caught on a stretcher hook causing severe injuries. As this case proceeded to trial, we successfully argued in a motion in limine that the internal operating rule transcended the area of reasonable care. As such, the Court excluded the introduction of the rule to prevent a reversible error in allowing the rule to improperly influence the jury. By being able to proceed in this manner, we were able to create a greater burden of proof for the Plaintiff's counsel in their case of liability as against our client.
|
|
