applying Restatement Section 342 in a negligence action initiated by a pedestrian against an adjacent landowner based on injuries purportedly sustained due to a fall on a sidewalk
How later courts described this case
- applying Restatement Section 342 in a negligence action initiated by a pedestrian against an adjacent landowner based on injuries purportedly sustained due to a fall on a sidewalk
- holding jury must be informed of the consequence of its apportionment of negligence
- “We conclude[ ] that the jury should be informed of the consequence of its apportionment of negligence.”
- A pedestrian walking on a public sidewalk is a licensee of the property owner
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HESTER, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur with that portion of the Opinion which holds that the jury should be informed of the consequence of its apportionment of negligence.
I dissent as to the portion of the Opinion which refuses to grant a new trial. I would grant a new trial as to the issues involved in the first day-light fall down. I would refuse to submit to a jury the issues involved in the second day light fall down which occurred on the same sidewalk five days following the first fall down. Appellee clearly assumed the risk.