Opinion ID: 1218909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The City's Defense

Text: The city's primary negligence can be drawn from these facts: (a) the defect may not be viewed as one of a slight dimension or quality, (b) the alley was in a dangerously unsafe condition, which had been reported to the city and (c) the substandard condition had been in place for a time sufficient to be secured by guards or to undergo repairs. In sum, the record reveals a long-standing presence of an unguarded, open and obvious defect of a dangerous character. The city's defense appears to be that (a) the rut was an open and obvious danger, (b) Byford knew where it was located and could have avoided it, (c) he stepped into a known hazard and, (d) ergo, the injury he sustained was caused by his own negligence. This defense (alleging an open and obvious defect and contributory negligence) raises clearly questions for the jury. [22]