Philip Laws leased an apartment from Candice Sutton. Laws had notified Sutton on more than one occasion that the wooden steps to his apartment were decaying and in need of repair. Laws claimed that he had to leave the outside light on to avoid portions

Question

of the steps that no longer would bear his weight when he came in at night. Sutton promised to repair the steps while Laws was away on a business trip. Accordingly, Laws did not leave lights on during his absence. When he returned three nights later, Laws was injured when one of the steps broke under his weight as he was entering his apartment. Laws sued Sutton. Sutton replied that she should not bear liability for Laws' injury because Laws knew of the condition of the steps and had not taken the customary precaution of lighting the area. Based on what you have learned in this chapter, decide the case.

Answer 1

Questions of contributory negligence, comparative negligence and assumption of the risk are primarily questions for the jury to resolve based on the unique facts and circumstances of the case presented. If the state in which this case is tried is a contributory negligence jurisdiction, the jury has the right to conclude, based on the evidence, that Laws was contributorily negligent in not leaving the outside light on, knowing that certain areas of the steps would not support his weight, and that such areas would be difficult (if not impossible) to identify in the dark. Should the jury conclude that Laws was contributorily negligent, Laws recovers nothing from Sutton. If the case is tried in a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the jury might choose to apportion fault between Sutton (the defendant) and Laws (the plaintiff), and reduce the damage award by the percentage that Laws was responsible for his injuries due to his own negligence. In either a contributory or comparative negligence jurisdiction, Sutton could raise the "assumption of the risk" argument against Laws, arguing that the plaintiff "actively, voluntarily and willingly" proceeded in the face of danger knowing the risk, and that such assumption of the risk should serve to bar completely the plaintiff's recovery. Again, the resolution of this case depends on whether the case is tried in a contributory or comparative negligence jurisdiction, and the jury's analysis of the factual evidence presented at trial.